What's new

POTW : unemployedgm

MenInG

PakPassion Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Runs
218,016
A very sensible take on what the role of the Chief Selector should be from an excellent new poster!

Congratulations [MENTION=147774]unemployedgm[/MENTION]


http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...Plausible-Deniability&p=10060659#post10060659

The vast majority of fans on this forum probably believe that Inzamam ul Haq is unqualified for his position. That being a great batsman does not make qualified to be a selector. They would be right. The bigger issue is that the next Chief Selector will be as bad if not worse than Inzamam. Why? Because the institution of selection is archaic and non-functional. It is a job with a basic description offered to a select few with a myriad of problems.

One, the job of a selector is not to select a squad of players for a specific format or a tour. The job of Chief Selector is to first build the organizational capacity of the Front Office and the Sporting Structure. His job is to identify a group of scouts, analytics professionals, engineers, and programmers to build traditional scouting infrastructure and objective scouting infrastructure. Furthermore his job is to align that structure so it becomes functional.

Two, the job of a chief selector is to establish and identify a method of playing cricket in each form of the game. At least at the International Level that style and method should be the same from the International Team throughout the Age Groups. Based on that style and method, a Chief Selector should hire a Head Coach and Coaches underneath that structure. He should also appoint the captain. Finally, a Chief Selector should have Profiles of Every Position in Every Format. For example, what are the qualities and attributes of a T20 Opener?

Three, the job of a chief selector is to know every player in the country. He should have detailed Scouting Reports about every player. Because a Selector can't be everywhere he should have access to video of every player in Pakistan. Videos that illustrate the player at his best and at his worst.

Four, the job of a chief selector is to organize this talent. Every player should be integrated in a Depth Chart. His position and standing should be discussed internally amongst the brains trust. The Selector, the Coach, and the Captain. Furthermore, each players standing should be discussed with the player, his domestic coach, and his agent. The Chief Selector should facilitate a pathway to improvement and the National Team.

Five,the job of a Chief Selector is not to pick a squad 15 players. The job of chief selector is to BUILD A TEAM. These are two completely different ideas with contrasting outcomes.

Six, the job of a Chief Selector is to balance the need to win today with the need to win tomorrow. Meaning a chief selector must create and then balance short and long term goals. Succession Planning is a big part of his job.

The idea of a Chief Selector is ridiculous. In modern sports we have General Manager's, Directors of Football, and President's of Sports.. Operations. In Cricket we have selectors. In a professional environment, a selector is akin to a CEO for the Sporting Structure. His job is immense and time consuming.
 
Very Good post. Chief selector should not be such a relaxed job. It should require effort and dedication. The introduction of Gm's would change this.
 
Wow. Missed this post earlier. Top post and a very well deserved POTW. So the question is, why aren't teams like Eng, AUS,NZ, SA that already follow these guidelines in other sports not implementing them in cricket. Especially England with the best soccer league in the world. Is cricket, as a sport, archaic and is being controlled by minds that don't want to adapt to modern requirements?
 
Last edited:
England recently started thinking in this way but generally speaking this approach is non-existent. Australia is at its absolute lowest ebb today because there selectors and that institution as a whole suffers from being out of touch with progress.

I hate this but anyone who has been around a cricket team knows there is a significant lack of intellectual discourse in cricket. Why? It is because Selectors are historically former players. They only know what they know. They know very little about anything else.

Building a team is an analytical process. That isn't to say that it is an algorithm. It is to say that cricket requires complex and critical thinking. Until we move beyond former players monopolizing these jobs things won't change.
 
England recently started thinking in this way but generally speaking this approach is non-existent. Australia is at its absolute lowest ebb today because there selectors and that institution as a whole suffers from being out of touch with progress.

I hate this but anyone who has been around a cricket team knows there is a significant lack of intellectual discourse in cricket. Why? It is because Selectors are historically former players. They only know what they know. They know very little about anything else.

Building a team is an analytical process. That isn't to say that it is an algorithm. It is to say that cricket requires complex and critical thinking. Until we move beyond former players monopolizing these jobs things won't change.

Most former players are average.

Their analytical ability (barring the technical aspects of the game which for some reason they rarely ever showcase) is shockingly poor.

Plus the snobbish attitude of most fans who believe you need to have played the game to be a good analyst/strategist doesn't help.
 
Last edited:
Six, the job of a Chief Selector is to balance the need to win today with the need to win tomorrow. Meaning a chief selector must create and then balance short and long term goals. Succession Planning is a big part of his job.

This must be Greek and Latin to most selectors. :))
 
Scouts are hard to find, and also if the person has not played the game there is a good chance in South Asia at least to get some corrupt sifarish person on the job, I believe it should be necessary to have played the game at some stage of life to be a good scout.

Also if domestic structure is robust the amount of data available should be enough to decide the players needed, this is somewhere pro sports in USA exceeds.
 
Before asking what is the role of chief selector, one should ask what is the role of the board. One cannot expect only the chief selector to do his job when the board itself is failing in its job.

The role of the board as well as the chief selector does not change when personnel change.
 
I'm not sure if the next CS will be as bad/worse than Inzi but this is a great post that richly deserves to be POTW. I hope one day you'll get a job with PCB because you clearly have the brains and analytical approach to sports to understand what is required to change the rotten system.
 
Last edited:
A very nice read.

Apparantely MoYo wants Azhar Ali and Asad Shafiq back for the ODI WC. So I totally get your point that the next selector may be worse.

We need to tweak the think tank somehow. May be Mickey/Inzi should stay and its time to say thank you and good bye to Sarfaraz...

In addition Inzi needs to be sent his job description.
 
A very sensible take on what the role of the Chief Selector should be from an excellent new poster!

Congratulations [MENTION=147774]unemployedgm[/MENTION]


http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...Plausible-Deniability&p=10060659#post10060659

A distinctly Americanized perspective on sports management. But one that may not be a good idea to graft onto the systems and structures of cricket. Why? Because cricket boards are designed to built as associative structures, with each domestic unit operating quasi-independently and competing with each other. In theory anyway. That is the best case structure for a National cricket board. No need to ape the methodology of a privately owned team in American sports leagues. The goals and outcomes that are desirable for the latter are quite different from the former.

I can understand where the poster is coming from, since he sees himself as an unemployed "GM" or General Manager. along the lines of what a lot of NFL teams have (depth charts and all). While such thinking maybe good for a Multan Sultans, I strongly believe that it would be absolutely terrible to apply it to a national cricket board.
 
A very nice read.

Apparantely MoYo wants Azhar Ali and Asad Shafiq back for the ODI WC. So I totally get your point that the next selector may be worse.

We need to tweak the think tank somehow. May be Mickey/Inzi should stay and its time to say thank you and good bye to Sarfaraz...

In addition Inzi needs to be sent his job description.

I think Sarfraz’s narrative and assessment about the success and failure of the team lacks deep analysis. It’s hard to fix something when you’re not diagnosing the problem correctly.

At the same time I don’t think Sarfraz has the same level of power as Mickey or Inzamam. Getting rid of Sarfraz for there failures would be unfair. He should be made accountable for his own failures.
 
Another chance to read this excellent post.
 
Back
Top