• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The Captains input regarding selection

Langeveldt

Soutie
So who should pick the teams? Should the captain have a say? Should he have the full say on team selection? Or just a slight input?

It's just interesting when players like Peterson and Lewis are selected, its obvious that they can't seem to cut the mustard, and the captain has no faith in them whatsoever, whats the point in them playing?
 

Jungle Jumbo

International Vice-Captain
There are three ways to do it:

Either...

... the captain sits in on selection and has a direct influence on who is in the team. Captain ends up happy when he has his way. Captain ends up unhappy when his view is clearly not that of the selectors.

... the captain has an influence on the selection, but is not directly involved. IMO this only results in the captain not getting his way.

... the captain has little influence on selection, and just makes the best of the team that turns up.

I think the best method is the last one (provided we are discussing an international side, not a state/county/club side). Should the captain sit in on the meetings, there could be two problems: a) the selectors diagree with him, damaging their relationships, or b) players are unhappy with the captain if they are dropped since he has some direct responsibilty with that player being dropped. Imagine if Dravid had had a big influence on Ganguly being dropped, not necessarily this time, but before Christmas against Sri Lanka? He would have been the scapegoat of the pro-Ganguly gang.

If you use the second method, there must be a healthy trusting relationship between the captain and the selectors. It can work well, but can fall apart easily.

The last method seems to me to be the best. If the captain has a clear conscience about selection issues, then he will remain well respected by his team mates even if poor selections are made - the selectors will be the ones under fire. It allows him to think more about on-field tactics, and to concentrate on his own game. The only problem with this really occurs somewhere like India, where the selectors are heavily biased towards players from their own zone. This is where the captains influence may be helpful, particularly if he has done his job correctly and has a good understanding of the players in the frame and has the team's best interest at heart.

With regards to the Lewis/Peterson situation, I don't see this as a major selection problem involving the captain, what we have here is a) lack of Australian bowling backup, and b) lack of a South African spinner. If the captain has a serious problem, then he should make his views clear to the board, but if these players are deemed to be the best possible by the selectors, then it is difficult to complain.

Actually I have been more impressed by Peterson than I have been by Boje in the past. Admittedly I have only seen him bowl recently in the Pro20 and Sunday's ODI, but he looks capable of turning the ball and getting out batsmen, whereas Boje never looked like taking more than a couple of wickets a match.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Michael Atherton, whose book is the best on captaincy I've ever read (yet to read The Art Of Captaincy), said he was always happiest either when the selectors gave him the team or he and the coach had almost complete control. He hated sitting on the panel and not really having influence (kinda inevitable when your panel is made up in half of Brian Bolus and Fred Titmus).
Really, I think it's probably best for the captain to be given the team and make the best of what he's given. It's pretty obvious to anyone that Robin Peterson and the like would not have been given anywhere near as many chances (if any at all) were they not from previously-disadvantaged background.
Frankly, I've generally found that when captains have had most say in selection it's resulted in people like Andrew Symonds being picked when there's simply no logic behind it whatsoever (still one of the worst selections I've ever seen). Often captains have favourites, because they're "in" the team, rather than having a coach\CoS who's involved but not in the same way as a captain would. There's nothing ostensibly wrong with having huge faith in a player, but very often it can be misplaced if he's someone you're close to (how much longer might Robin Smith have played if Atherton had been the chief selector?) and that can have a detrimental affect on the team.
Cricket is the only team-sport in The World that has this problem. In rugby, football, etc. the captain is nought but a glorified on-field cheerleader (to use Atherton's phrase). In cricket, there is of course an element of unfairness in foistering on a captain someone who he has no faith in, but it's still probably the best way to do things.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Jungle Jumbo said:
Actually I have been more impressed by Peterson than I have been by Boje in the past. Admittedly I have only seen him bowl recently in the Pro20 and Sunday's ODI, but he looks capable of turning the ball and getting out batsmen, whereas Boje never looked like taking more than a couple of wickets a match.
Believe me, Peterson is nothing other than a virtaul Boje-clone.
People often think a spinner is capable of turning the ball more than another if they see them only in an isolated instance having seen another for ages.
Boje can turn the ball on helpful surfaces - so can Peterson.
Boje, though, is unquestionably more accurate than Peterson.
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
Richard said:
Boje, though, is unquestionably more accurate than Peterson.
As well as a better batsman and a very good thinker.. Whilst not the best bowler, Boje deserves his spot when the conditions warrant spin bowling..
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
I think the captain should have a large say in selection, after all, he probably knows his players better than anyone, and his neck is on the line if the team fails..
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Well... so is the coach's.
Graeme has already gone through 4 coaches (if you count his appointment before Ford's sacking, which strictly speaking he wasn't), which suggests he's got less blame than some. IIRR a CoS was replaced fairly recently, too.
Great coaches like Duncan know players without having to get into the mateyness the way Vaughan, especially, has done. Vaughan's comment that he'd "not even consider not having him (Harmison) in the team" after Harmison had just averaged about 50 in his last 9 Tests suggests to me that he's a) got a bit too much influence and b) lets his "my boys" attitude blind him to the facts.
 

roseboy64

Cricket Web Content Updater
Langeveldt said:
I think the captain should have a large say in selection, after all, he probably knows his players better than anyone, and his neck is on the line if the team fails..
I agree with that.
 

Autobahn

State 12th Man
You should read the book Rich, Mike Brearley devotes a whole chapter to it in which he basically says that a captain is unlikely to get anything out of a player he didn't want there in the first place, but at the same time needs the experience and knowledge of the other selectors to give him objectivity on the players that are up for consideration.

The only times the first method has failed is when people don't pay attention when choosing selectors and you end-up with pig-headed types (e.g. illingworth and titmus) who don't even enter into debates with the captain.

The second method again will cause tension within the ranks because even if the captain wanted a certain player and was ignored by the board, the player will still suspect his Captain had something to do with since there's no offical way of proving that he didn't. Plus it again relies on good selectors to take the captain's advice and not just ignore it.

The third way is utter stupidity, Brearley re-counts that when Illingworth was manager of Yorkshire he would present Old with 12 names and discuss who would be 12th man on the morning of a match. I mean what's the point in being a captain then? Why should Old go out and have to encourage 10 men he had no hand in picking?
 

kvemuri

U19 12th Man
Langeveldt said:
I think the captain should have a large say in selection, after all, he probably knows his players better than anyone, and his neck is on the line if the team fails..
I agree with that comment, if the captain is not happy with the team selected, I really can't see him being able to lead the bunch of players, whom he doesn't want and the players (not wanted) being able to play to their best abilities or add any value to the team. Result would always be negative to the team in the end.
 

sirjeremy11

State Vice-Captain
I think this should be on a case by case basis.

If I was the captain, I would certainly want to have some input into the players in the team. If I was unhappy with a couple of players in the team (I would hope that if they were good performers, and I had problems with them personally, I would over see this and act professionally), and knew that there were better suited ones out there, it would certainly hamper my ability to captain.

If a captain can't keep aside his personal feelings from what is best for the team, then I would hope that they had nothing to do with who is in the team.

And on that, I wonder what sort of input Taibu had on who was in his team? Feel sorry for that guy. Just a kid. Quite a bit of talent. Now, probably lost from the international game.
 

adharcric

International Coach
sirjeremy11 said:
I think this should be on a case by case basis.

If I was the captain, I would certainly want to have some input into the players in the team. If I was unhappy with a couple of players in the team (I would hope that if they were good performers, and I had problems with them personally, I would over see this and act professionally), and knew that there were better suited ones out there, it would certainly hamper my ability to captain.

If a captain can't keep aside his personal feelings from what is best for the team, then I would hope that they had nothing to do with who is in the team.

And on that, I wonder what sort of input Taibu had on who was in his team? Feel sorry for that guy. Just a kid. Quite a bit of talent. Now, probably lost from the international game.
He'll replace Geraint Jones or Mark Boucher in a few years, just wait and watch ...
 

adharcric

International Coach
The captain is the one who will lead the group of players on the field so he should have full confidence in their abilities. The captain should have a say, but the captain should not be biased towards anything but the best interests of the team.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Autobahn said:
You should read the book Rich, Mike Brearley devotes a whole chapter to it in which he basically says that a captain is unlikely to get anything out of a player he didn't want there in the first place, but at the same time needs the experience and knowledge of the other selectors to give him objectivity on the players that are up for consideration.

The only times the first method has failed is when people don't pay attention when choosing selectors and you end-up with pig-headed types (e.g. illingworth and titmus) who don't even enter into debates with the captain.
Have you read Opening Up? Atherton devotes much time to the explosion of the popular myth that he and Illingworth were constantly at loggerheads. He constantly repeats that they developed a grudging respect - he even goes so far as to say that they were "not poles apart in our views on most players".
Fred Titmus he describes as "having little to offer but harmless".
Brian Bolus was the one he had most problem with, and Nasser Hussain described him in much the same way in Playing With Fire.
If anyone was the pig-headed type, it was Bolus.
The second method again will cause tension within the ranks because even if the captain wanted a certain player and was ignored by the board, the player will still suspect his Captain had something to do with since there's no offical way of proving that he didn't. Plus it again relies on good selectors to take the captain's advice and not just ignore it.

The third way is utter stupidity, Brearley re-counts that when Illingworth was manager of Yorkshire he would present Old with 12 names and discuss who would be 12th man on the morning of a match. I mean what's the point in being a captain then? Why should Old go out and have to encourage 10 men he had no hand in picking?
If he doesn't want to he can resign the captaincy.
Captaincy is an honour and it has certain responsibilities.
Did Chris Old ever complain?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
adharcric said:
The captain is the one who will lead the group of players on the field so he should have full confidence in their abilities. The captain should have a say, but the captain should not be biased towards anything but the best interests of the team.
That sort of thing is wishful-thinking.
 

adharcric

International Coach
Richard said:
That sort of thing is wishful-thinking.
yes it is, and an appropriate unbiased captain has to be selected. i think dravid fits the bill for india, so this concept works just fine for me.
 

adharcric

International Coach
also, the need for the captain to have a say is more important in india (as mentioned earlier) than in other nations where politics doesn't play as much of a role in selection.
 

Top