Argus and company recommended an overhaul of the selection and coaching structures in Australia.
No sooner had Australia comprehensively lost the 2010-11 Ashes series than the Board announced not one but two enquiries into the causes of the defeat. Don Argus, the recently retired BHP chief, was asked to examine cricket operations. Meanwhile, two governance experts were called upon to review cricket structures.
Furthermore the Board committed itself to adopting whatever recommendations were put forward, sight unseen. It was an extraordinary and humble concession, a confession that things were wrong.
Bear in mind that Australia had been the strongest team in the world for more than a decade, and had only recently lost its ranking. Still it was not good enough. Critics clamoured for change, the public was angry about bizarre selections and the team seemed dazed and in decline.
Allan Border, Ricky Ponting and Steve Waugh – all former Cricket World Cup winning captains.
Photo © Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade website – www.dfat.gov.au, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.
Argus released his report on Friday. It was the product of months of intense work. His panel interviewed 61 people, mostly cricketing “experts” but a sprinkling from business and other sporting codes. Malcolm Speed, Allan Border, Mark Taylor and Steve Waugh conducted the interviews, serious servants of the game able to command respect. It was a vastly experienced panel, without an axe to grind and devoted to its task.
Argus and company recommended an overhaul of the selection and coaching structures, with the appointment of a director of cricket, the introduction of a full time chairman of selectors, the inclusion of the captain and coach on the selection committee and the elevation of the coaching position to a more senior role.
Conflicts of interest were also highlighted, with Chappell no longer able to work both as a selector and talent manager and the two other selectors remaining independent of State commitments.
In terms of personnel, Andrew Hilditch is on his way out because his legal work prevents him applying for a full-time position. In any case he is not up to the task. Chappell’s influence has also been reduced. By nature domineering, he was a risky nomination as selector and hereafter can focus on spotting and monitoring talent. Tim Nielsen, foolishly given a new three-year contact before the Ashes campaign, can apply for the expanded coaching job but is unlikely to get it. Already he is out of his depth.
Meanwhile, Australians await the verdict of the enquiry into its structures. Hopes are high that the current constitution allowing of letting the States nominate Board members will be replaced by a system seeking independent members capable of providing improved oversight and superior judgment. After all the incumbents have made a complete hash of it.
Crucial question
Now comes the crucial question. Dare Indian cricket appoint similar bodies to examine its procedures? Dare it vow to accept whatever recommendations the experts might make? India, too, has suffered a painful setback. Not that every defeat ought to cause a commotion. Someone has to win, someone has to lose. Just that some losses by their very nature tell a tale.
A few years ago another ailing cricket community put itself in the hands of outside forces. By 2007 English cricket was back in the doghouse as the team was trounced 5-0 down under. The Schofield report was instigated and its suggestions were adopted. Hugh Morris was appointed as cricketing overseer, and began the vital process of ensuring that the right men were put in their right positions.
Andy Flower and Andrew Strauss were products of that report, or anyhow the desire that provoked it.
Now it is India’s turn. Isn’t it? Did not R.P. Singh’s opening over tell us that?