Do we need selectors?

[KipperJohn]

I shall make this very brief - hopefully it will start a debate but I shan't lose any sleep if it doesn't.

With all the various arguments raging about who is in charge, who picks the team and who takes ultimate responsibility I began to wonder about the role of selectors and how that impacts on the coach/team director and ultimately performance.

Personally I think it should be pretty simple - the coach should pick the squad and team he wants. Of course he can't be in two places at once and that's where the role of the 'selector' should change - to 'scouts' who would make recommendations about individual players, with details of their perceived strengths and weaknesses. I know this pretty much mirrors football and our national side hasn't been exactly a huge success - but that's probably due to many external factors than the actual system.

Clive Woodward reckoned the ECB was living in the dark ages in that respect - I think he may well have a point.

Having been a company secretary for many years, my view of boards and committees as being a necessary 'evil' hasn't changed very much. Keep them to the bare minimum!

[Arthur Crabtree]

I don't think Clive Woodward understands how cricket works, and how the captain is the manager on the field. It's no like other sports in that respect. You could conceivably get by without coaches, but the captain's role is always vital. I'm happy with them not being selectors, but they should have final say in picking the team from the squad. I also suspect Cook will never be that captain.

But, in aping corporate structures, the England cricket team may be overcomplicating things a little. As well as making them a bit harder to like. It's a sports team. Maybe all this adherence to structure takes away a little freedom from the players, a little joy away from their game?

[Arthur Crabtree]

But we do need selectors to watch the county game, and identify talent.

[Making_Splinters]

You need to have some sort of observation going round watching county cricket to identify players who could play international cricket. The Coach and Captain should have a say in the squad picked and the ultimate say in the team picked, though there is only a real difference in overseas tours.

I feel following the recently concluded Ashes tour, that there needs to be a greater degree in oversight on what the Coach is doing.

[KipperJohn]

But we do need selectors to watch the county game, and identify talent.

That's fine by me Arthur - that's exactly what I was saying - but should they then be part of the decision making process as well?

I see that we have a new selector in Angus Fraser - I have no idea by what process the ECB selects its selectors - but you can see where this is going. Presumably it has policies and procedures in place for such appointments but it's another layer which just muddies the waters.

Why not just appoint a team coach/director, let him choose his scouts and then make the decisions - including the appointment of the captain. The ECB has a Board and a Managing Director - that's quite enough in my view.

I've said before - ask a committee (which is what a selection panel is) to build a square table and the top will be round and it will have three legs. Or three tall, fast bowlers!

[Arthur Crabtree]

Well, some have been saying that this is exactly what Andy Flower was doing. As coach/director.

We did get away from that after the first whitewash. The coach stopped being a selector, as the captain had done previously. It was to get away from the idea that the person coaching the players was also the judge of them, which was felt would complicate their relationship. It was just the coaches job to get the most of the talent he was given. But under Flower, there was a large degree of creep back to how things had been under Fletcher, and even beyond that.

It depends on the people involved. It could work with a single supremo. But what if that man becomes a controlling megalomaniac... And you will always need advice from people who watch CC. Personally, I think we are better off with a balance of responsibility, and no one person having too much power. Between coach, captain and selector.

But it sounds like you will have had a lot more experience in these kinds of things KJ.

[Making_Splinters]

If you look at the series of blunders that led up to the Ashes tour, i don't see how anyone could reasonably suggest the Coach should be given the sole rights for selection. Under Flower, what Flower wanted he got, and that ended up going very badly.

The more I think about it, the more I feel that actually the Coach and Captain should be consulted regarding squad selection, but have no direct say in it, and then be given the rights to pick the team on the day.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Flower's initial response to the Ashes loss was to ask for more control....! He was very definitely wanting total final say on selection.... He was going to implement a year zero policy.

Does this feel entirely sane now? At the distance of one month on.

[Making_Splinters]

Flower's responce to the series felt like a bad punch line to a bad joke.

[Arthur Crabtree]

It did make him look out of touch.

[meninblue]

Do we need selectors?
===================================
Definitely Yes.

Coach can only select players and put forward names from the squad of 17 or maybe 30 across various formats that he trains.

Selectors have the role to select the squads for A teams as well as international from the domestic cricket, which is not wise to be done by a international team coach due to many constraints.Offcourse the selectors will only do well if they are not biased + ex international cricketers + willing to select players who fit the changing trends rather than selecting players who fitted their style and their era.

[D/L]

“Scouts” only recommending would not work. The coach, if solely responsible for selection, would then have to run the rule over the dozens of players recommended and would simply not have time to do this.

The current system, whereby a board of selectors choose the squad and then the coach and captain choose the team may not be perfect but is clearly the best one. Were it not, I’m sure a different system would have been adopted before now.

[Durhamfootman]

The more I think about it, the more I feel that actually the Coach and Captain should be consulted regarding squad selection, but have no direct say in it, and then be given the rights to pick the team on the day.

this is where I am, on this

[KipperJohn]

Thanks for the response guys. I'll stick to my guns nevertheless. I'm not in favour of a group of people, however experienced or well -intentioned, arguing the toss over who should be members of a national sporting squad.

After the MD or Chief Executive, the next most important appointment will be the Team Director. Democracy is fine in government and politics - but I'm not convinced it's successful in what is a hard-nosed, intensive sporting environment.

Getting the right Team Director is absolutely the number one priority -let him(or her) be responsible for success or otherwise. By all means he should consult with those appointed to bring players to his attention so he can then run his eye over the player. We have batting, bowling, fielding and other coaches all of whom should have an input, give advice and take the day to day strain away from the Team Director's overarching role. No Team Director can put his stamp on the team if he doesn't agree with whoever is selected.

And, picking up on a point made earlier, if the selectors are giving the coach the players he asks for, then their function in decision making is completely pointless. He already knows who he wants!

This country is rightfully proud to be one of the best democracies in the world, but when it comes to highly charged, professional sport, a more dictatorial approach (Alex Ferguson anybody?) is often more appropriate. Don't tell me he went all over the place looking for players - he had people to do that for him.

[Albondiga]

[quote="KipperJohn"]Thanks for the response guys. I'll stick to my guns nevertheless. I'm not in favour of a group of people, however experienced or well -intentioned, arguing the toss over who should be members of a national sporting squad.

After the MD or Chief Executive, the next most important appointment will be the Team Director. Democracy is fine in government and politics - but I'm not convinced it's successful in what is a hard-nosed, intensive sporting environment.

Getting the right Team Director is absolutely the number one priority -let him(or her) be responsible for success or otherwise. By all means he should consult with those appointed to bring players to his attention so he can then run his eye over the player. We have batting, bowling, fielding and other coaches all of whom should have an input, give advice and take the day to day strain away from the Team Director's overarching role. No Team Director can put his stamp on the team if he doesn't agree with whoever is selected.

And, picking up on a point made earlier, if the selectors are giving the coach the players he asks for, then their function in decision making is completely pointless. He already knows who he wants!

This country is rightfully proud to be one of the best democracies in the world, but when it comes to highly charged, professional sport, a more dictatorial approach (Alex Ferguson anybody?) is often more appropriate. Don't tell me he went all over the place looking for players - he had people to do that for him.[/quot



I have said this many times before but I going to risk being a bore. The coach and Captain should pick the side and they should have "eyes and ears" to inform them of who is class and who is in good form. These should be the umpires who are generally ex first class and know a good player when they see one. Officials will be reduced because the umpires are already at the game. Simple no ?????