The ECB and selecting the wrong selectors

I’m not a negative person by nature. I’m actually getting pretty fed up with all the negative things we’ve had to write about recently.

With the notable exception of Ben Stokes, there was absolutely nothing positive to write about this winter. Then we had the fallout from Andy Flower’s departure – all good things must come to an end – and the sordid Kevin Pietersen debacle.

It almost went unnoticed that during the KP affair, in which the ECB quite rightly became public enemy number one, they also managed to alienate the rest of the world with their quite shameful coup at the ICC.

In fact, a cynic might suggest that the announcement of England’s T20 World Cup squad, which launched the KP controversy, was deliberately timed to detract attention away from the ECB’s hideous union with the BCCI. A good day to bury bad news indeed.

It’s interesting that Australia named their squad a few days later; therefore the Aussie media actually had the opportunity to dissect the ACB’s role in what some observers have portrayed as the heist of the century. English journos enjoyed no such freedom; they were overly preoccupied with the Pietersen saga.

In recent days the bad news has kept coming. Not only have the Aussies absolutely pulverised a Kallis-less Cricketboks at Centurion Park (thus proving their Ashes victory was np fluke), but Angus Fraser has also been appointed an England selector.

In my opinion, the appointment of Gus is another absolutely terrible decision by the ECB. It flies in the face of all the criticism they received when Ashley Giles was made a selector whilst simultaneousy being employed full time by a county.

By appointing Fraser, the ECB have basically said to the cricketing world (again) “we really don’t give a toss what you think. We do what we like so lump it, you plebs”.

The more one criticises this intransigent organisation (perhaps I should have used a different word, as the term ‘organisation’ implies some level of err, organisation) the more they seem to stick to their guns.

To briefly recap, the situation when Giles was both a selector and head of cricket at Warwickshire was untenable. It was a clear conflict of interest.

Remember the furore when The Bears pursued James Taylor when he was out of contract at Leicestershire? The implication, of course, was that signing for Giles’ Warwickshire meant Taylor stood a better chance of playing for England. It was an ugly situation.

Even if one assumes that Fraser is a man of impeccable character and would never abuse his role as a selector to Middlesex’s advantage (please don’t think we’re assuming otherwise) the situation will inevitably get messy.

For example, there is a lot of talk about Middlesex’s Eoin Morgan replacing Pietersen in the England test team. He even turned down the lucrative IPL to stake his place in the side. This puts Fraser in a difficult position, especially as Morgan was recently named Middlesex’s limited overs captain for 2014.

We don’t doubt that Gus will try to be impartial, but is it really possible for someone who loves his county so much (they are, after all, his full time employers) to be 100% impartial, even on a subconscious level?

The whole situation raises too many questions – which is why, before he stood down as chairman of selectors in October, Geoff Miller explicitly warned against appointing selectors who were affiliated to a county.

So why have the ECB ignored previous experience, and the advice of their departing chairman of selectors, and appointed Fraser?

Please don’t think this is a personal attack on Gus. He was a favourite of mine as a player and by all accounts he’s a really good bloke. Indeed, the other half of TFT has actually met the man and found him more than courteous. But maybe there lies the problem …

Gus just feels like another conservative, safe, ECB type choice. He’s a man who doesn’t utter strong opinions in public (much like Giles) and he’s clearly a Lord’s insider. You wonder whether his suitability as a selector was ascertained on this basis, rather than his cricketing mind.

I know this is subjective opinion, but I never found Gus to be particularly insightful either as a journalist or a TV pundit – likeable though he undoubtedly was. Indeed, the best bit about watching Fraser on TV was Charles Colville’s attempts to wind him up (which invariably succeeded all too easily). Basically, I would love Gus to be my uncle, but I’m not sure I want him to pick the England cricket team.

The bottom line is that there were scores of former cricketers just as suitable (if not more so) than Fraser for the vacant selector’s role. What’s more, none of them would come with the baggage that accompanies someone who is already employed full time by a county; someone who’s main job involves key recruitment decisions.

Furthermore the sheer practicalities of Fraser’s involvement with Middlesex make it impossible for him to execute his duties as a selector properly: when Middlesex are playing (which is basically every week during the domestic season) he can only watch cricketers involved in matches against Middlesex.

Fraser cannot, for example, get in the car at short notice and drive up to Headingley to watch Adil Rashid one day, and then travel to the Rose Bowl to watch James Vince the next. This is surely what a selector is meant to do: keeping an eye on an assortment of players at key moments during the season.

If Middlesex are not playing Nottinghamshire on the eve of the first test, then Fraser will not be able to personally assess the form of James Taylor. He’ll see a whole lot of Eoin Morgan though. Do you see my point?

It is also interesting to note that the ECB considered approaching Marcus Trescothick, but decided against it because they didn’t want to give power and influence to someone so close to the players. Sounds rather familiar, eh. I’m not saying that Tresco would have been my choice (he is still employed by a county too) but what irks me is the criteria by which the ECB make these decisions.

It’s a real shame that the ECB apparently ruled out anyone who currently works in the media. This is totally nonsensical, as some of the game’s most analytical minds are employed as pundits. It’s a tragedy that the likes of Mike Atherton and Michael Vaughan are deemed unsuitable to help English cricket at its time of need. In fact, it’s quite perverse that Fraser, the willing workhorse as a player, should be a selector when his cerebral former captain has no influence whatsoever. Who would have thought that twenty years ago?

There were also plenty of other ex-players (not working in the media) who would have made astute selectors. An interesting choice would have been Mark Ramprakash – a dedicated technician if ever there was one.

The fact that Ramp’s international career was a disappointment is irrelevant. Those who have read Moneyball will know that one of the best General Managers in the history of baseball was Billy Beane – an ex-player who entered the league with high expectations but failed spectacularly to live up to them.

Having analysed where his playing career went wrong, and assessed the personal attributes he lacked as a player, Beane was in a brilliant position to assess which players did actually have the right stuff – in other words, he knew through painful experience which players were doomed to failure and which had both the talent and mental toughness to succeed. It’s probably not a coincidence that Graeme Hick is doing such a good job with Australia’s young batsmen.

Before I sign off, I’d like to finish on a positive note. Yes, unbelievably we actually have some better news to report for once:

It’s great to see Paul Collingwood appointed as Giles’ assistant for the upcoming T20 World Cup. As captain of the team that won the event a couple of years ago, Collingwood is exactly what the team needs: he adds much needed personality and dynamism to the coaching staff.

Indeed, I’m sure most fans would prefer to see Colly in charge with Giles as his assistant, rather than the other way around. Well, we can’t have everything.

James Morgan