The Australian Selectors

[Jono]

Was sure it'd be Cox. itstl.

Merv probably fired because he doesn't have Foxtel and watch any cricket

 

[Prince EWS]

Merv probably fired because he doesn't have Foxtel and watch any cricket

I know you're joking, but that's a ****ing good reason IMO. Should definitely be part of his job to make sure he watches the games.

 

[Jono]

SEN were talking about it yesterday. How ludicrious that Australia didn't have a full time selector, and the part time selectors didn't even need to watch cricket.

 

[GotSpin]

SEN were talking about it yesterday. How ludicrious that Australia didn't have a full time selector, and the part time selectors didn't even need to watch cricket.

No wonder North and Hussey are still in the team. Probably still think Hussey averages 80 and North passes 20 more than 1 in 6 times

 

[lachlan43]

Was sure it'd be Cox. itstl.

Merv probably fired because he doesn't have Foxtel and watch any cricket

Good argument for having some domestic cricket back on Channel 9.

Batsman-dominated selection panel now. Not sure that that's an entirely healthy balance.

 

[howardj]

Now we might have some sober selection meetings.

 

[lachlan43]

Na, Boonie's still there.

 

[howardj]

Oops, good point mate.

 

[howardj]

Seriously though, I find it hard to fathom that you need four guys to pick an 11 man team. Too many cooks spoil the meal. With four heads, there's too much scope for left-field theories and far too much thinking.

 

[lachlan43]

I read somewhere (think it might've been in an Inside Cricket magazine, so probably Chappelli or Richie) that a three-man panel is the best. 5 is too many, and 4 leaves the chance of a 50/50 split about a decision. 3 is a good number because it's not too many and you can't have a 50/50 split over whether a player should be in the team or not.

 

[Lostman]

From CI;

'The board made the decision after a presentation from Hilditch in Melbourne on Friday. Sutherland said Hughes, who was disappointed with the decision, had provided valuable input and expertise during the past five years.

"Andrew was clear in his assessment that Merv had been a good selector and a strong contributor around the selection table, but that Cox, Boon and Chappell were the better options to continue on the panel," Sutherland said. "Unfortunately this means that Merv is no longer a member."

Don't know much about CA policies, but how much power does the head selector have?
The other selectors seem like lackeys tbh.

 

[lachlan43]

Too much. A chief of selectors is a joke of an idea in the first place.

 

[howardj]

I read somewhere (think it might've been in an Inside Cricket magazine, so probably Chappelli or Richie) that a three-man panel is the best. 5 is too many, and 4 leaves the chance of a 50/50 split about a decision. 3 is a good number because it's not too many and you can't have a 50/50 split over whether a player should be in the team or not.

Agreed - three is best.

In my opinion, anything more is too unweildy, and yet anything less is perhaps too concentrated.

 

[Lostman]

Too much. A chief of selectors is a joke of an idea in the first place.

To quote the wise words of M.Atapattu;
"Selectors are jokers headed by a muppet"

 

[Jono]

Marvan randomly giving the selectors a spray after being a quiet guy for 10 odd years was so awesome. Just came from nowhere.