Do we need selectors?

[meninblue]

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 ?????

Good point.Umpires have a long career than selectors as they are changed every 5 years or so.Umpires watch at least two generations of cricketers in their lifetime.Most umpires being cricketers themselves at various levels, they can summarize who are below average,average and above average players. Their inputs can be taken in picking state level squads so that the better cricketers are pushed up one more level.

[KipperJohn]

A quote from Slipstream on another thread:

'With Fraser now a selector Robson looks likely for the number 2 spot.'

That raises far more questions than answers.

[meninblue]

Nothing would match what Ashley Giles did . Advised Boyd Rankin to move from Ireland to Warwickshire forever and then played him in all formats for England.At least Angus Fraser has not taken those steps yet regarding Robson.

Selectors are often bias and it's just not restricted to England. Our national selector Roger Binny has got his son Stuart Binny in ODI squad in spite of there being a clearly better all rounder.There are numerous examples of bias selectors worldwide.Such selectors are definitely problem creators than problem solvers.

[Gingerfinch]

A quote from Slipstream on another thread:

'With Fraser now a selector Robson looks likely for the number 2 spot.'

That raises far more questions than answers.

You'll always have biased selectors/coaches though.

[sussexpob]

We should replace selectors with judges from the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, and potential candidates for test cricket will be judged on a 5 minute comedy routine.

The 11 funniest will then play for the National Team, which regardless of a drop in form, will all then at least be able to relive the moments of unbridled laughter they shared over a nice 2 month tour to Australia.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Or just let Alan Sugar choose off The Apprentice. The players could make little presentations about how they would break into far east markets in order to make the squad.

(I've never seen it, but I guess that goes on).

New names could be devised for batting, bowling and fielding to make it more of a part of the ECB's corporate outloook.

[KipperJohn]

I have no problems with some sort of advisory panel, be it inclusive of umpires or otherwise - at least they have no vested interest. What amazes me is that when a new selector is announced, nobody queries why, how or by whom he was chosen. Did he apply, was there a list of candidates and due process - or did he get a call in the middle of the night?

Simply not good enough if you believe in proper governance and accountability.

[D/L]

"Jobs for the boys", a bit like umpires in county cricket where standards have not been raised since the game started. Hopefully, with selectors, most can get more things right than they get wrong.

[Durhamfootman]

yet for a short while in the early days of Flower's tenure, the selectors didn't really put a foot wrong. First Trott, then Finn, and the re-emergence of Tremlett, all played vital parts in England's rise up the rankings. It was getting to the stage when I began to think that any player selected must have a viable future.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I have no problems with some sort of advisory panel, be it inclusive of umpires or otherwise - at least they have no vested interest. What amazes me is that when a new selector is announced, nobody queries why, how or by whom he was chosen. Did he apply, was there a list of candidates and due process - or did he get a call in the middle of the night?

Simply not good enough if you believe in proper governance and accountability.

Not umpires. It would have an influence on their impartiality if they are known to have given advice. Maybe if it's very off the record.

[mikesiva]

I've never liked selectors....

In track and field athletics, which I also follow avidly, the selection is done by trials. the first three past the post are the only three who go to the Olympics in a particular event, and so on.

I strongly believe that the top runscorers in a particular domestic competition should be the ones who automatically make your team. If there's something wrong with that method, then it says more about the flaws in your domestic competition than it does for the need for selectors.

Selectors continually picked Keith Arthurton ahead of Shiv Chanderpaul in the 1990s, and who's around today? If weight of runs had been used instead of selectors, then Shiv would've been in the side ahead of Arthurton sooner.

[KipperJohn]

"Jobs for the boys", a bit like umpires in county cricket where standards have not been raised since the game started. Hopefully, with selectors, most can get more things right than they get wrong.

If that is the case D/L ,and I think you may well be right, it's a disgraceful way of choosing selectors for the national side. If the ECB was subject to regulation it wouldn't last 5 minutes in any other business environment. There needs to be transparency in appointments, including advertising for candidates, if they are going to retain my trust.

[Arthur Crabtree]

If it was just weight of runs Mike, Hick and Ramps would have been Test greats and Vaughan and Tresco Test flops.

[KipperJohn]

Is it me who is the lone voice here concerned, not just about the need for selectors, but the apparent manner in which they are 'appointed?'

Quite frankly I think the latter point is far more important than the first.

If D/L's assertion that it's 'jobs for the boys' - is correct, how on earth does a national body get away with it - it's probably illegal under current employment legislation - they are are employed aren't they?

There is mute acceptance of Gus Fraser's appointment - his abilities are irrelevant if there's no competitive process for the position.

Is nobody else appalled - or do we allow the administration of English cricket to stumble along in the dark ages, safe in the knowledge that it won't be challenged on issues like this.

If the team lives in a bubble then so does the hierarchy.

[sussexpob]

Is it me who is the lone voice here concerned, not just about the need for selectors, but the apparent manner in which they are 'appointed?

After a lifetime of discontent with the ECB I have utterly had my fill of them, tbh Kipper. I dont feel they represent the best interests of fans of English cricket, they are currently more protective of their own selfish interests than the standards of the team, and have sold their soul for 30 piece of silver rather than protect worldwide cricket institutions.

So they made Angus Fraser a selector? Im past caring tbh, even if he does crap over the next four years and solves no problems, like Whitaker, he will probably be promoted after a 5-0 lost to Australia when they decide to also promote Whitaker to the "King of the World" position, or whatever corporate nonsense title they give him to manage the person who is managing the person who looks after the side and who oversees the captain.

The KP issue pretty much killed English cricket for me for the foreseeable future. I took the 5-0 in good grace, was positive about its impacts hitting a few long term issues home, but the last month has destroyed my interest in International cricket.