CricInfo Home
News Home

NEWS FOCUS
Rsa in Pak
NZ in India
Zim in Aus

Domestic
Other Series

There was a story this week concerning two observers being recruited to assist the selectors of the England cricket team. The men in question are Ian Botham and Jack Birkenshaw. Two good men. A press release gives the impression that this is something new. Many, many people in the game are regularly consulted by the selectors (and were by the ex-coach) as to their views about who is playing well, who isn't, and where we should be looking. Umpires are asked for their views as are county captains, coaches, and, indeed, journalists.

There is a real danger that the issue of selection becomes too clouded. It stands to reason that opinions will vary greatly and when it comes to the crunch there will inevitably be trade-offs.

The spokesman for the England and Wales Cricket Board added that the observers would be at liberty to attend, but not vote at, selection meetings. In the present make up of things that would mean that at least seven people could be present, and offer a view, at selection; the chairman, David Graveney, two selectors, Graham Gooch and Mike Gatting, the captain, the coach and two observers. It also begs the question by the general public as to who exactly is picking the team.

When I was coach to the England team I, too, was at the selection meetings. I had a view but not a vote. It became a good-natured standing joke that 'my view' was invariably rejected. ``Bad luck, Bumble, you have lost another,'' was something I would hear regularly. Nevertheless, in my position with the team and in dealings with the media, I had to toe the party line and when asked would always say: ``We felt . . . .''. I was in no position to say: ``Well, actually, we have picked the wrong team.''

Graveney, as chairman of selectors, would have to play the same game. He is a terrific man and unceasing in his efforts, totally honest and well respected by all in the game. The tragedy is that the team results are not satisfactory and at the very sharpest of ends he could be a casualty when all along we are in a process of 'selection by committee'.

I feel that the selection panel is an outdated system and if, as everyone is saying, we need to 'draw a line and start again,' then that is the first thing that needs to go. Let us have someone in position who is accountable instead of a merry-go-round of everyone having their two 'pennyworth. Call him the manager or coach and give him sole responsibility and accountability. He can have as many 'observers' (what a naff word that is) or scouts around the country as he wants, but when it comes down to the game, he writes the team down and pins it up.

Surely Alex Ferguson (sorry, Sir Alex) doesn't sit down with six or seven others before finalising the XI. Sure, he will consult his staff - find out who is fit and who isn't - receive his scouts reports on the strengths, weaknesses and tactics of the opposition. His coaching staff, appointed by him, will have worked with the players in practice and in training but, when Saturday comes, it is his team, and everybody knows it.

There is so much importance being put on who will be the next England team coach. Under the present system, it is no big deal. But if the manager-coach was in charge, and selecting the captain, it would be a whole new ball game. So, who would appoint the manager? In football, I believe that Jimmy Armfield would advise the FA executive. For FA executive read England management advisory committee. This is chaired by Brian Bolus and comprises John Barclay, Dennis Amiss, Doug Insole, David Acfield, ECB chairman Ian MacLaurin, international teams director Simon Pack, chief executive Tim Lamb, and Graveney.

Hugh Morris, as technical director, has recently been co-opted and he will be a major player in the new appointment. These are good men of cricket, but should not see themselves as too important, with meeting after meeting. A problem that will have to be resolved is the line of communication issues for the cricket management and coaching staff do they report to the international teams director or the chairman of the England management advisory committee? Surely, there is one too many. Important decisions will be made and once they are, the cricket element should be allowed to get on with the job unhindered, and without the tail wagging the dog.

I had an opportunity to speak with Bob Woolmer last week about this very issue. South Africa have exactly the same system in place as England in relation to the working of the team; physio, trainer, computer analyst, psychologist and specialist coaches. There is one other position that intrigued me a lot and that was Peter Pollock. He was a world class bowler but is now with the team all the time. He appears to be a father figure and obviously knows the game inside out. His main function, however, is that he is the buffer between the coach and the board.

Woolmer works with the team and is allowed to get on with that, while Pollock liaises between the team and the board. It seems to work.

Footnote: What an atmosphere there was at Old Trafford for the game between Pakistan and India. It was staggering to see the support for their team from the rival supporters. They can all take a bow for making the game a fantastic spectacle. Yes, there was the odd skirmish, as there will be from the daft element, but everyone seemed to have a terrific time. In England, cricket is a part of life but in India and Pakistan, it is a way of life. The Pakistan coach had a full police escort to Old Trafford and mounted police surrounded it inside the ground. In their own countries, Sachin Tendulkar and Wasim Akram are cult figures are mobbed everywhere they go.

There is the other side to that, too, with defeat taken as a national disaster. There has been talk in the past of houses being burned down after a particularly bad result. It was with some relief that I returned home to leafy Cheadle Hulme after our exit from this World Cup and found Chez Lloyd still standing.