The captain as selector

[Wicked Lester]

I have an increasingly uneasy feeling about the captain acting as a selector.

If nothing else, I think public comments on selection matters should be left to Inverarity (or one of the other non-playing selectors).

While I didn't disagree with Clarke's comments concerning Ponting's axing, something didn't sit well with me about the way he publicly aired his thoughts on the matter (in fairness to Clarke it was in direct response to questions).

Anyway, IMHO there'll come a time where the captain's role as a selector will cause a significant rift in the team. Moreover, if the captain is going to provide public commentary on the matter he'd better make sure he doesn't put a foot wrong in expressing himself. One slip up caused simply by choosing the wrong word to express a view and the mood in the dressing room could be awful.

Frankly, I think Cricket Australia is on a slippery slope here. By all means use the Captain of the team as a 'referral authority' on selection matters, but to actually have the captain as a member of the selection panel creates a situation where it is inevitable that accusations about the skipper being inconsistent with different players will be made. In a team sport even the perception that all players may not be equal in the eyes of the captain can be poisonous. Non-playing selectors play the bad guy. But a breakdown of trust inside the team will lead to real problems.

I think this move is going to end in tears.

 

[sherb]

I have an increasingly uneasy feeling about the captain acting as a selector.

If nothing else, I think public comments on selection matters should be left to Inverarity (or one of the other non-playing selectors).

While I didn't disagree with Clarke's comments concerning Ponting's axing, something didn't sit well with me about the way he publicly aired his thoughts on the matter (in fairness to Clarke it was in direct response to questions).

Anyway, IMHO there'll come a time where the captain's role as a selector will cause a significant rift in the team. Moreover, if the captain is going to provide public commentary on the matter he'd better make sure he doesn't put a foot wrong in expressing himself. One slip up caused simply by choosing the wrong word to express a view and the mood in the dressing room could be awful.

Frankly, I think Cricket Australia is on a slippery slope here. By all means use the Captain of the team as a 'referral authority' on selection matters, but to actually have the captain as a member of the selection panel creates a situation where it is inevitable that accusations about the skipper being inconsistent with different players will be made. In a team sport even the perception that all players may not be equal in the eyes of the captain can be poisonous. Non-playing selectors play the bad guy. But a breakdown of trust inside the team will lead to real problems.

I think this move is going to end in tears.

The captain was part of the selection panel on tours for years. The world didn't fall apart then, for instance when Ian Chappell dropped KD Walters on the 72 tour of England.

As for the bolded part, how you the captain be accused of that if you don't know how he votes? You could only level that particular criticism at the panel as a whole.

The captain gets one vote out of five. Far too much concern is being expressed about his supposed level of influence on the panel. Blokes like Marsh and Inverarity in particular (and I suspect Arthur as well) aren't going to simply roll over and accede to whatever Clarke wants. You are talking tough nuts here.

To me it is a mountain being made out of a molehill.

 

[Wicked Lester]

The captain was part of the selection panel on tours for years.

Wasn't that practice stopped during the Waugh era because of such concerns?

As for the bolded part you've commented on, the Captain may well be only one vote out of five but its very apparent that regardless of individual opions the selection panel is going to operate with a cabinet style of solidarity - at least that is how it appears.

Bottom line is it doesn't matter whether its one vote out of five because presumably where and how those votes are cast will never be made public and the captain , so long as he chooses or is instructed to public support selections and convey the rationale behind them, is walking a potential tightrope.

I'll stick to my guns - whether its soon or a couple of years down the track, this will lead to mistrust within the team and probably a very nasty spat at some point.

 

[The_Reaper]

Wasn't that practice stopped during the Waugh era because of such concerns?

As for the bolded part you've commented on, the Captain may well be only one vote out of five but its very apparent that regardless of individual opions the selection panel is going to operate with a cabinet style of solidarity - at least that is how it appears.

Bottom line is it doesn't matter whether its one vote out of five because presumably where and how those votes are cast will never be made public and the captain , so long as he chooses or is instructed to public support selections and convey the rationale behind them, is walking a potential tightrope.

I'll stick to my guns - whether its soon or a couple of years down the track, this will lead to mistrust within the team and probably a very nasty spat at some point.

It was stopped because Waugh dropped Warne - whilst Warne was another selector.

 

[Andrew Mc]

It was stopped because Waugh dropped Warne - whilst Warne was another selector.

When was Warne ever an Australian selector???

 

[Wicked Lester]

When was Warne ever an Australian selector???

There was a practice where on tour the Captain and Vice-Captain selected the team from the touring squad during the tour.

There were several conflicts that arose over time including:

- Waugh opting for Macgill over Warne
- Waugh suggesting to Tubby that he wasn't worthy of selection
- Waugh and ? making the call on Michael Slater and effectively ending his career. Although it was probably the right call, my memory was this was the one that really altered the ACB's approach to the way touring parties were selected, not because the wrong decision was made but because of the rancour it caused and because it could have been argued that a duty of care above that which was provided should have been provided to Slater given his perosnal issues at the time.

The bottom line is some of those relationships were never repaired.

Clarke will inevitably find himself walking the finest of tightropes on selection matters. As I've said, by all means refer selection matters to the captain for comment but I'm not convinced its a good idea to actually make him a selector and its an even worse idea to have him talking publicly about selection matters.

 

[frankrizzo]

When was Warne ever an Australian selector???

On tour the captain coach and vc were the selectors.

Waugh and marsh dropped warne 2 votes to 1 in 99 in the west indies.

As for the people mentioning captains selecting teams as far back as the 1970's well you can't be serious...the world has changed the game has changed and more important the money to be made from cricket has forever change things.

They are no longer dropping a bloke who makes a normal living from cricket they are potentially making decisions that make or cost people(including close mates) millions of dollars a year.

At some point it's going to once again cause a major rift in the team, it was an odd move to give the selection role back to the skipper.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

I can't think of another sport that entrusts so much on it's captain.

In the AFL the captain merely does press conferences and tosses the coin.

Cricket - the entire strategic decision making is done onfield by one man.

To then not give that man an input on the tools he'll have at his disposal in any given match seems ridiculous.

Captains for years have had both official and unofficial roles in selection. (Official on tour, unofficial at home). For mine, it's long overdue

 

[Sman-21]

Its been happening for years in Aus cricket its only now that they have come out an openly stated so blatantly in the media.
Do not agree with it 1 bit.

If Clarke had no say in the 1 day team does anyone think Forrest would of got this opportunity?
He would of been bottom of a list of around 5-10 players to choose from.

I seriously doubt Clarke sits around watching whats happening in cricket all around Aus an has the ability to pick players without being biased.

 

[The_Reaper]

- Waugh and ? making the call on Michael Slater and effectively ending his career. Although it was probably the right call, my memory was this was the one that really altered the ACB's approach to the way touring parties were selected, not because the wrong decision was made but because of the rancour it caused and because it could have been argued that a duty of care above that which was provided should have been provided to Slater given his perosnal issues at the time.

.

Gilchrist?

One of the reasons behind the bad blood between the two.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Gilchrist?

One of the reasons behind the bad blood between the two.

There is no bad blood between those two. It comes from that bullshit rumour that Slater fathered Gilchrist's kid.

 

[Underarm]

If Clarke had no say in the 1 day team does anyone think Forrest would of got this opportunity?
He would of been bottom of a list of around 5-10 players to choose from.

do you have an Issue with counting? Clarke has 1 vote of 5. sure he can't watch every game but the others can (and do...). Its their primary job as selectors. They would have been the ones who Identified Forrest as future player for australia and used it to fast track him into the side- not Clarke.

the Captain should be involved in the discussions as to who is picked in his side. If he doesnt think that Doherty is good enough Spinner he should be able to have his say and get rid of the guy for someone he feels can do the job. Ponting got boned many a time because of his lack of ability to have his say!

 

[sherb]

As for the people mentioning captains selecting teams as far back as the 1970's well you can't be serious...the world has changed the game has changed and more important the money to be made from cricket has forever change things.

They are no longer dropping a bloke who makes a normal living from cricket they are potentially making decisions that make or cost people(including close mates) millions of dollars a year.

At some point it's going to once again cause a major rift in the team, it was an odd move to give the selection role back to the skipper.

In the instance I quoted, Walters couldn't buy a run on that tour and yet you are suggesting that in the modern day scenario his money earning capacity should be considered? Form doesn't come into it any more?

Time may have changed but the selection process still has the same basic principles. Players are still going to be dropped for poor form. They are still going to be selected for good domestic form and/or potential. Players are still going to be selected out of the blue over more favoured players and so on.

I don't see how having the captain as part of the process makes the slightest bit of difference. If anything, I would have thought it would be a benefit to have someone involved in the selection process who was out there in the heat of things on a regular basis.

Anyway, as I said, the captain is one of five selectors. Far too much credence is being given to the amount of sway he may hold in the process. I do agree that which selector votes which way (in particular the captain) should not be disclosed publicly though.

 

[dumb]

so long as he drops players with a bit of tough love (they get enough cuddling as it is), is frank about their form and problems they will have less reason to question their non-selection.
in any case, you should be able to see that you can also get those divisions from some players holding a little too much self-belief which is no fault of the captain.

ponting does not seem too unhappy with clarke (openly at least).

 

[Black Diamond]

I think it should be a case by case approach for deciding if a captain is part of the selection panel.

The whole debacle around Katich is the reason I don't think Clarke has what it takes to captain and select. I don't think Ponting had that in him either.

Steve Waugh on the other hand could do it. He pulled the trigger on Shane Warne during the tour of the WIndies in 1999, he dropped Ian Healy from the ODI side in 1996 or '97 (can't remember), he dropped Langer in 2001, and he delivered the news to Moody that he would no longer open in ODIs and that Gilchrist would do it. Hence, Waugh was made of the right stuff to act as part of the selection panel.

I don't see that in Clarke. He cares too much what people think of him.

 

[Tyberious Funk]

IMHO, the main problem with the captain being a selector, is the question over who selects the captain in the first place? Does Michael Clarke (or whoever), get a say in his own place in the team.

Also, who exactly is the Australian captain? In the last couple of months, we've had Clarke, Ponting and Bailey all captain Australian cricket teams. Do they all rotate through the selection panel? And how do you handle long-term planning across multiple formats?

For example, Peter Forrest looks like he was selected with future Test matches in mind. Notwithstanding the fact he has subsequently done very well, his domestic one day form was poor. What happens if we have a different one-day and test captain? The one-day captain says no thanks to Forrest, but the test captain wants the guy given a trial. The test captain sees the tri-series as just another meaningless one-day series, and has his attention focused on the tour of the Windies. But the one-day captain is focused on winning every game he is leading the team. How does that work?

IMHO, the whole thing probably seemed like a good idea at the time. But I suspect it will eventually blow up.

 

[Underarm]

Does Michael Clarke (or whoever), get a say in his own place in the team.

Also, who exactly is the Australian captain? In the last couple of months, we've had Clarke, Ponting and Bailey all captain Australian cricket teams. Do they all rotate through the selection panel? And how do you handle long-term planning across multiple formats?

IMHO, the whole thing probably seemed like a good idea at the time. But I suspect it will eventually blow up.

Cam white always maintained that he would not vote on his own t20 career. I'm sure the same practice will be used for pup in 4-5 years time.

As for your other point, Clarke is the captain of test and one day squads, regardless of the on feild captain. So until there is 2 different captains over the 2 major formats I don't think there is an issue.

 

[Tyberious Funk]

As for your other point, Clarke is the captain of test and one day squads, regardless of the on feild captain. So until there is 2 different captains over the 2 major formats I don't think there is an issue.

So who selects the T20 team? Clarke, or Bailey?

BTW, I'm not sure if one-dayers are considered a "major" format any more.

 

[Sman-21]

So if Clarke only has 1 vote in 5 please explain the whole katich situation to me.
It should work that he only has 1 vote.

Get the feeling though he gets what he wants an they fall into line.

 

[frankrizzo]

I don't see how having the captain as part of the process makes the slightest bit of difference.

Australia between 99-2001, multiple examples of how a team can quickly split into factions when tough decisions are made regarding popular senior players.

 

[ManWithNoName]

So if Clarke only has 1 vote in 5 please explain the whole katich situation to me.
It should work that he only has 1 vote.

Get the feeling though he gets what he wants an they fall into line.

Please show me the game where Katich was dropped.

 

[The_Reaper]

So if Clarke only has 1 vote in 5 please explain the whole katich situation to me.
It should work that he only has 1 vote.

Get the feeling though he gets what he wants an they fall into line.

Katich wasn't even captain then.

In fact Katich was 36 and was out of the squad due to injury.

He also assaulted another player.

 

[The Passenger]

captain and players need to be mentally tough for it to work, but they should be. if they aren't then you've gotta question a lot of things....

the captain has always had a lot of influence on selections, even if it isn't official.

 

[Hellgood]

So if Clarke only has 1 vote in 5 please explain the whole katich situation to me.
It should work that he only has 1 vote.

Get the feeling though he gets what he wants an they fall into line.

That happened before the new selectors/system took over.

 

[MC Bad Genius]

It feels like this thread is just a thinly veiled reason to have yet another go at Clarke. Why doesn't he have the ticker to make the hard decisions? What justification is there I make such a call?

And people really need to let go of the Katich incident. Like someone else stated, he wasn't dropped after that all happened and was only initially left out of the team due to injury. That's pretty decent considering he physically assaulted another member of the team!

Most rational people would say that the new selection panel has been pretty good. They've made a few mistakes, but on the whole have gotten it pretty right. There has been some concerns about communication to the players, but that seems to be getting ironed out a bit and let's be honest, it's still miles ahead of the communication from previous selection panels.