Should captains (and coaches) be on selection panels?

[Red]

What it says?

 

[sledger]

Yes, but only the panels of the opposition.

 

[Coronis]

Wasn't it Bradman who practically kicked Grimmett out when he was at his peak?

 

[Daemon]

Yes, but they shouldn't have the final call.

Then again how it is right now is fine I think.

 

[Jono]

I definitely think the captain should be on the selection panel, but they should have just one vote. No official ability to veto or make a deciding vote or anything like that.

Coach I probably think should be as well, but I feel more strongly about the captain being there.

 

[Red]

I think selectors should be separate from the team. The captain should only work with the selectors when there are personality clashes within the team structure.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Captains should have overriding privileges seeing as how they're the ones who have to face the music for everything that happens on the field. They're in a far better space to make decisions since they're active cricketers familiar with the pulse of the modern game.

At least that would stop ****, unimaginative captaincy..captains would be appointed by selectors but selectors would have to be on the ball while appointing their captain because if the captain ****s up, vetoing or whatever, the **** will trickle down and they'd be held accountable for appointing a **** captain. Like that.

 

[NUFAN]

Opposite to Jono, I feel more strongly about the coach being part of the selection panel. Most countries now have batting coaches, bowling coaches etc that if you don't let the official coach help select the team, he ends up having a fairly redundant role.

 

[Prince EWS]

I've always been of the opinion that an independent panel of selectors should pick the initial squad and then the coach and captain should decide on the final eleven on game day based on the conditions, balance, morale etc.

The coach and captain should definitely have input into the initial squad selection but I don't think they should get a vote. By and large these blokes shouldn't have to go around watching domestic cricket and scouting players; that should be a specialist job.

 

[Jono]

@ Noofers: But do you feel the captain should have a say? I'm not against the coach being on, just strongly believe the captain should definitely be.

@ PEWS: Gun post.

 

[social]

Opposite to Jono, I feel more strongly about the coach being part of the selection panel. Most countries now have batting coaches, bowling coaches etc that if you don't let the official coach help select the team, he ends up having a fairly redundant role.

There is also an argument that the coach shouldn't be a selector as his primary role is to assist players with their games and the latter will be less inclined to seek assistance if he thinks that admitting to a problem will lessen his chances of being picked

 

[LongHopCassidy]

The appointed selectors should pick the 12, but the captain and coach has the right to pick the 11 on game day.

Having the captain so involved in selections creates an aura of uncertainty within the camp IMO. An essential part of being a leader of men is that you can be a confidante to the people around you and have empathy for their own selection insecurities. Right now there's a huge incentive to hide your faults/doubts lest they hinder your selection chances and it's a major opportunity lost for a captain to form bonds with his team - even more critical as the lone senior amongst a very inexperienced side who boom and bust on confidence.

Then there's the extreme situation of personal conflicts. There should be no emotion involved in selection, and the captain - of all the cricket establishment - is by far the most exposed to that.

Captain intervention sometimes has its merits - Ponting lobbying for Symonds in the 2003 World Cup squad being the best example I can pull from my anus at short notice - but it's not a culture I'd want to promote. A captain needs to back whoever's in front of him, and needs to be approachable around his players.

 

[Burgey]

There is also an argument that the coach shouldn't be a selector as his primary role is to assist players with their games and the latter will be less inclined to seek assistance if he thinks that admitting to a problem will lessen his chances of being picked

The appointed selectors should pick the 12, but the captain and coach has the right to pick the 11 on game day.

Having the captain so involved in selections creates an aura of uncertainty within the camp IMO. An essential part of being a leader of men is that you can be a confidante to the people around you and have empathy for their own selection insecurities. Right now there's a huge incentive to hide your faults/doubts lest they hinder your selection chances and it's a major opportunity lost for a captain to form bonds with his team - even more critical as the lone senior amongst a very inexperienced side who boom and bust on confidence.

Then there's the extreme situation of personal conflicts. There should be no emotion involved in selection, and the captain - of all the cricket establishment - is by far the most exposed to that.

Captain intervention sometimes has its merits - Ponting lobbying for Symonds in the 2003 World Cup squad being the best example I can pull from my anus at short notice - but it's not a culture I'd want to promote. A captain needs to back whoever's in front of him, and needs to be approachable around his players.

Both good points. When Simmo was made a selector, there was a school of thought that the players wouldn't go to him for help with problems in their game as he might hav reason to drop them. Same for the skipper.

The counter-argument, I suppose, is if those two people wear the consequences of results, they deserve a say in the team which is picked. I don't know that there's a right and a wrong answer - it might depend on the captain really. Border needed a hand when he became skipper and Simpson came on board as coach and later selector, but I'm pretty sure that by the time he reitred, Border could have done those jobs by himself quite easily. He'd just become a better man manager.

 

[Snippie27]

The appointed selectors should pick the 12, but the captain and coach has the right to pick the 11 on game day.

Having the captain so involved in selections creates an aura of uncertainty within the camp IMO. An essential part of being a leader of men is that you can be a confidante to the people around you and have empathy for their own selection insecurities. Right now there's a huge incentive to hide your faults/doubts lest they hinder your selection chances and it's a major opportunity lost for a captain to form bonds with his team - even more critical as the lone senior amongst a very inexperienced side who boom and bust on confidence.

Then there's the extreme situation of personal conflicts. There should be no emotion involved in selection, and the captain - of all the cricket establishment - is by far the most exposed to that.

Captain intervention sometimes has its merits - Ponting lobbying for Symonds in the 2003 World Cup squad being the best example I can pull from my anus at short notice - but it's not a culture I'd want to promote. A captain needs to back whoever's in front of him, and needs to be approachable around his players.

I agree with this in large part, the selectors should choose the squad, but captain/coach should have final say on the day.

There are of course other factors that needs to be taken into consideration, the selection policies in South Africa during the 90's were filled with politics, and a Captain's input was sorely needed!

Another case where a Captain's stand on selection issues turned out to prove all nay-sayers wrong was Kepler Wessels' lobbying for Peter Kirsten for the 92 World Cup. Peter was the third highest run-scorer of the tournament...

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I'd like to think one of them should have a say in the selection of a squad but do both need to be there and would the main selectors have the authority to overrule if they think it is wrong.

I imagine Cook and Flower have a big say for England as it is the only way Bopara keeps getting chance after chance when the whole world can see he isn't up to it mentally or ability wise.

 

[honestbharani]

Like with most jobs, it depends on the person who is given this power.. If a man of integrity is your captain/coach and is given this power, it usually works out well.. But if the captain/coach are not trustable and are given this power, it will create even bigger issues for the team.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Well Giles must have a big say in the England ODI set up as they have called up Boyd Wankin. Good god we may have a candidate for a worse player than Dernbach.

 

[GIMH]

Yes

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Yes, especially in Pakistan. The selectors complain that they chose the players based on the captains wishes and the captain complains he was never consulted. Who the **** is right?

 

[Midwinter]

For the reasons already mentioned.Neither the captain or coach should select the squad.
They should be consulted by selectors about the performance of players already in the team but should have no say who gets picked in the 12.

The "Simpson quandry" comes to mind Would you ask the coach for help with a weakness if the coach could use it as a reason for not picking you. ?

Similiarly captains may not pick people they don't get along with.

The case of Khawaja in India for example, the batting was the problem the whole series yet they picked everyone else except the reserve batsman in the whole series ?

Not being on the selection panel removes doubt about personal issues