What I learned this Summer

As part of a series on The Sledge, several online columnists were invited to submit what this past cricket season has taught them.  Featured contributors included cricket blogosphere stalwarts Ant Sims of Wicket Maiden, Dave Siddall of World Cricket Watch and Subash Jayaraman of The Sight Screen.  The following was Balanced Sports' contribution.

What I learned this summer:

Andrew Hilditch was really, really bad.

Let's not split hairs, I already knew this – so did everyone except Mitchell Johnson. But John Inverarity's relatively steady start at the helm of the Australian selection panel threw Hilditch's stint as Chairman of Selectors into sharp relief.

The guy wasn't bad, but comically inept.

Australian cricket has for years been regarded as a bastion against petty griping. Like any good marriage, the players and establishment held onto their grievances, only to let them pour out in flare-ups – like, say, World Series Cricket or the A-Team's Rebel Tour of South Africa. However, once there's been some resolution and a few years in which the establishment re-entrenches themselves into “best practice”, then suddenly Australia's competitive again.

With the ascent of journeymen like Ed Cowan and Dan Christian to the forefront of the national setup, Australia appears to be once more rewarding effort rather than physical gifts. This suggests the trough into which Australian cricket sunk wasn't so much the effects Warne, Langer and McGrath retiring, but of Hilditch's inconsistent selection methodology.

In his five years as head honcho, Hilditch debuted twenty-nine players, a neat half of which didn't play more than six Tests. It seems the only people he held to account were the newbies. Hilditch looked at players much like the fifteen year old who lusts at every girl who walks by. His tendencies varied from the youthful (Steven Smith) to the old bags (Bryce McGain).

Hilditch is gone, banished to the vagaries of law practice. Which is good, because we can still feel good about despising him.

The World realised they should have been giving Tendulkar runs a long time ago

Australia's bowling lineup isn't a patch on the attacks Sachin Tendulkar has flayed around the world for a generation. Siddle's pretty good, Harris is an injury looking for a body part, James Pattinson seems to have a bit about him, Hilfenhaus is good if your TV isn't Hi-Def while Nathan Hauritz Lyon failed to trouble any recognised batsmen for the entire Border-Gavaskar series. You could call the ugly stepsisters – in Siddle's case you'd be spot on, as the man has a head like a kicked-in biscuit tin.

But no matter how disheveled the Aussie attack, it's a novelty to write that Tendulkar failed with the bat. More poignantly, he couldn't complete that troublesome hundredth International hundred that's becoming an Obelix-sized bugbear for him and increasingly-frantic Indian media outlets.

Which is confusing, because he's broken nearly all the batting records there are. Records shouldn't trouble him, and especially this one, because it just doesn't mean much (it's a compilation of ODI and Test figures). However, it is a very pretty thing to have on one's resume.

Like an average Joe trying to impress a model, Sachin's got performance anxiety – something none of us would have attributed to such an accomplished player. The cricket world has now realised that bowling to Tendulkar is a lot easier when he's got 99 tons under his belt and they wish he'd just gotten there sooner.

Virat Kohli will be welcomed by Australian fans for the next decade

Aussie fans have always had someone from opposing teams to hate. We don't mind arrogance and cockiness from our own lot (unless it's Dean Jones), but when stuff is thrown at our boys, we get all Simon Katich pissy.

The ultimate example of this is Douglas Jardine. The last two decades have been rife with people who rubbed Aussie cricketers, and the populace at large, the wrong way. For the most part, these guys have been good players, which has only reinforced the average Skippy's frustration at them.

It reads almost biblically.

In the beginning, there was Douglas Jardine. Jardine begat Trevor Bailey, who batted with slowness of a one-legged (and dead) mule. Bailey begat Tony Greig, who in turn begat Richard Hadlee. Hadlee had a son, whose name was Pat Symcox, who in turn brought Sourav Ganguly into being. Ganguly bred his own nation of irritants, but none were more irritating than the spinner, Harbhajan Singh.

This was the first Border-Gavaskar series since 1999 in which Harbhajan Singh didn't play – and for the most part (and perhaps because they lost so badly), the team apparently didn't have anyone for us to actively root against: there was Tendulkar's timelessness, Dravid's stoic nature, Yadav's constant four-balls …

Except Virat Kohli. While succeeding leading the Indian batting averages, he p****d off every Australian he saw with an attitude as calming as the new tabasco-flavoured Red Bull.

And this will see him welcomed on these shores for the rest of his career – probably with the typical Aussie mix of grudging admiration and febrile swearing.

And on the eighth day, Harbhajan had a son, whose name was Virat Kohli.

Tim Nielsen resigns, righting a four year-old wrong

Tim Nielsen has resigned as coach of the Australian cricket team. About bloody time, too.

After co-conspirator Hilditch, Tim Nielsen will be the most unlamented sacking in Australian cricket history. It's not that he's a bad coach - you don't get to his position without being capable - it's just that as former coach John Buchanan's right-hand man, he wasn't a sufficient enough change of message from his predecessor.

Under his watch, Australian national fielding standards declined from "world's-best" to the equally hyphenable "also-ran". They also rotated bowlers - in form or out - and attempted to dominate almost every situation, apparently unaware that circumstances had changed. Throughout his reign, Australia was hardly ever in position to be the aggressor.

It was, and three years later still is, time for a change.

courtesy: guardian.co.uk

Nielsen's appointment was perhaps the most alarming symptom of the malaise that overtook Cricket Australia last decade. On John Buchanan's retirement, rather than step out of their comfort zone - which they still refuse to do now - and appoint the best person for the job, they rewarded the loyal company man.

Rewarding the foot soldier can have it's advantages, but not in this situation. Buchanan retired saying he had taken Australia as far as he could. When a successful coach retires after a lengthy tenure, often a change of message (or it's delivery) is required as players have become accustomed to their former coach's motivation strategies. This change is hardly likely to come from a 2IC.

A close-to-home example is easy to point out. In 1996 the old ACB replaced successful coach Bob Simpson, who had with Allan Border pulled Australian cricket up from the depths, with Geoff Marsh. Simpson had no wish to leave, but the board felt the players needed to hear a change of voice. It turns out their suspicions were correct.

Steve Waugh was instrumental in Buchanan's installation as Australia coach, knowing he had the requisite technical knowledge and breadth of vision to help even the most established Australian players. Nielsen lacked both the technical knowledge and panoramic point of view. As an assistant coach, it was often his role liaise between players and coach. When moving from such a position to head coach, the distance between coach and players needed for objectivity and evaluation decreases.

This is one of the reasons why Nielsen's assistants, Justin Langer and Steve Rixon, should almost immediately be discounted as possibilities for the open position. Rixon in particular has form, coaching successful NSW sides as far back as the late eighties, but the team needs differing methods and better communication. It would be a logical to assume Langer especially is too close to the players.

The best replacement for Nielsen may already be within the system. Western Australia coach Tom Moody's style is a combination of discipline and evenness which proved successful when helming Sri Lanka. Even when his powers had faded as a player, his leadership was integral in Australia winning the '99 World Cup; he has coaching and captaincy experience in England, the subcontinent and at home. Should he decide to apply, he would be the logical frontrunner.

The Argus report continues to leave a bloody trail of carnage through the offices of Australian cricket. Whether this is for better or worse, no-one can yet tell. But certainly, it is wise to rid the setup of unpopular and underperforming elements. All Cricket Australia needs to do now is ensure they appoint the best coach for the role.

Reaction to the Argus Report: Keep Calm and Carry On

by Ben Roberts

Hold your horses, keep a lid on it, do not get ahead of yourself, there is still a long way to go.

Yes Andrew Hilditch is now relieved of his duties as the chairman of selectors, Tim Nielson stood down and at the very least Greg Chappell has been chastised for inappropriately seeking to meddle in team matters. All three have a lot to answer for regarding poor performance, but do not start looking at them as scapegoats, there is more needing improvement in Australian cricket before it is out of the woods.

Cricket is by far and away the hardest game to govern effectively. To begin with are Australian cricketers employees, therefore beholden to the wishes of the CA board or are they private contractors able to ply their trade on terms that they set? If it was the former then no-one would play the game as CA is hardly an employer of choice, if it was the latter than we would have 10 to 20 Kieron Pollards coming and going with abandon depending on the direction of the fiscal winds.

What we do have is something that swings in the middle where the wishes of the national authority, state authorities, private enterprises (IPL and the like), and the ICC; not to mention the 'assets' in the middle the players who all have their own desires as well. You try and draw a line between the competing objectives of these parties and make it straight. If you can succeed I feel there is a role negotiating peace in the middle east awaiting you!

courtesy: heraldsun.com.au

Throw into the mix now the latest initiative (yet to begin) is the Big Bash League where T20 becomes the central focus of the domestic fixtures. The BBL has required time, effort, and resources requiring the engagement of external parties (throwing another interested party into the governance mix) only for the Argus review to come out and criticise the focus on the quick buck in T20 over the longer forms of the game. Whoops!

We still have a CEO and Board of CA who appear dysfunctional and calls for a spill of positions will not die down for a while. The self interest extends further to the state associations who rightly, left to fend for themselves, will always make development and selection decisions based on the betterment of the state teams until there is some incentive to service the national side.

Finally despite the problems in the administration of the game how much of this can be blamed for the poor performance of the A grade cricketers in the Australian team. Did it really influence Messrs Ponting, Hussey, Clarke, Haddin etc. to the point in which their performance appeared suited to levels well below first-class that Hilditch was delirious, Chappell arrogant and Nielson confused? Of course not. While not optimal, these guys have been hitting cricket balls since they were knee high to a grasshopper and have natural talent in bucket loads, they are responsible for their own performance ultimately. Plenty of cricketers from less fortunate environments then them have succeeded despite poor administrations (take for example their current opposition who had civil war to contend with also).

Despite the release of the Argus report, it will be a while before Australia can truly challenge to be top of the cricket world again. It starts with the current series followed by the coming summer. The winds of change have begun, but do not expect a hurricane.

Australian Cricket: Pay selectors, Pay the Devil

Simon Katich is right: Australian selection policy has been remarkably inconsistent during his tenure at the top of the order. He may, however, be overstepping the mark somewhat as he campaigns for paid, full-time selectors. While the sentiment behind his recent outburst is justified - everyone in the country aside from the selection panel thought him worthy of at least a further year around the Australian side - and his forthright media conference was admirable, it's worth noting that there are several flaws in his argument.

When Defence Minister Stephen Smith entered the fray, the saga turned from interesting to ludicrous, especially when Smith lambasted the selectors for bias against Western Australians. Katich has played in New South Wales for nearly a decade. A Labour "powerbroker" very pleased with such a reputation, by speaking out of turn here he has plunged Australian cricket perilously close to the credibility line and gave those of us who still care wholeheartedly for the sport horrible visions of Ijaz Butt.

Employing selectors in a full-time role is perhaps an workable idea. Though much more cricket is played now than, say, even twenty years ago, offering a selector a full-time role would be a lavish expense - for men of the game such as David Boon, The Unspeakable One (Andrew Hilditch) and Jamie Cox would command far greater than a "living wage". Employing full-time selectors could cost Cricket Australia anywhere between (very conservatively) of a quarter or half a million dollars per annum, money the board simply doesn't have.

Also, while employing selectors on a full-time basis demands their accountability, it should by no means ensure it. Cricket Australia has every right to dismiss the selection panel as it stands, yet has chosen not to. The selectors are at fault for many of Australian Cricket's ills, but by no means all of them. Had Michael Beer been selected earlier in the Ashes series or Xavier Doherty not appeared at all, Australia likely would not have triumphed over the Old Enemy. Selection inconsistency (or is it Consistent backing of the selectors) has hurt the Australians badly, but not nearly as much as the current dearth of top-tier talent.

The third flaw in Simon Katich's notion is a simple one: Would he (or indeed anyone) wish to reward the current Australian selectors - probably handsomely - for the quality of work they've been performing? The thought of Andrew Hilditch walking home with $100,000+ per year from Cricket Australia brings me out in a frigid perspiration: he - nor David Boon or Jamie Cox - deserve that kind of money. It would be tantamount to throwing fistfuls of cash out the window of a skyscraper. Such an act would probably be a more efficient waste of money than pay the current panel.

The Argus review currently underway may suggest ways in which full-time selectors could be employed. One suggestion (this one's free, James Sutherland) would be to add further tasks to certain key roles: perhaps increase the responsibility and remuneration of the head of the Australian Cricket Academy, Bowling and Batting coaches? Neither Troy Cooley nor Justin Langer are employed full-time - use the cricket analysts already working within the system as they have done by bringing in Greg Chappell (for better or worse). Or, in a relatively even First Class Competition, expand the panel to seven and include one representative from each state, paid a bonus on top of their State salary. Perhaps both options are unworkable. It may even be that the best alternative is the one already employed.

Paying the selection panel more money would certainly command their attention and entice the best-qualified cricket judges into a position with Cricket Australia. But by doing so, the central board would be required to give them time to settle, develop a policy and then see rewards. Should this period be one year, suddenly there's a sizeable hole in CA's revenues, unlikely to be made up through attendances or prize money through improved performance.

It could simply be that the selectors have judged that Australia should no longer field their best XI, preferring more to develop players with a long term future, guided by Ponting, Clarke and Mike Hussey. Foolish, perhaps, but understandable given the age of recent Australian outfits. Katich would then not be seen as a leader and his position handed to Phil Hughes, a side effect of moving from "transition" to "full scale rebuilding". Make no mistake, that is what Australia now faces and the prospects of mid-term success are not welcoming. Messrs Hilditch, Boon, Cox and Chappell would be best served by simply declaring their policy to the nation, allowing everyone to understand; this would both enlighten the nation and allow for accountability.

While Simon Katich's record suggested he warranted a new deal (as did his partner in this media session, Stuart Clark), in order to make wholesale changes, unpopular decisions must be made and by dint of age - and availability of suitable replacements, for Shaun Marsh and Hughes await - they were amongst the first to be cut. Both have every right to be insulted by their treatment by Hilditch, Greg Chappell, Boon and Cox - and by extension, Cricket Australia. Katich, particularly, had both the form and runs to back up his claim.

Once a board run by domineering fools (c.f. the reasons behind World Series Cricket, among many other examples), Cricket Australia has regained such a a stature by becoming unwieldy and awash with self-interest. By paying large fees to selectors, that self-interest would become more than an exercise in conceit and begin to include large financial components. The way forward for Australian selection is unclear - but please, let's not pay for incompetence.

Image courtesy: livecricketmag.blogspot.com