MICHAEL Atherton was on the radio from deepest Australia. ''I never
said the captain should pick the England team,'' he insisted. ''I was
quoted out of context -- please make that clear.''
It was just another minor public-relations blip during a tour on which
disaster has been the ever-present twelfth man.
England have a tour manager who is invisible, a team manager who is
not even told when a replacement has been summoned from home, a chairman
of selectors who is on holiday in Spain.
Atherton has not had his sorrows to seek. Yet he has touched upon a
fundamental question which affects almost all sports, namely, who should
choose the team?
Cricket is one of the few remaining games where the captain has to
make vital decisions -- who bowls, which field will be set, when to
declare. Is there anyone better qualified to say which players should
take the field? Or is it unfair to place so much responsibility in the
hands of one man? What if he is not playing well -- would he drop
himself?
That situation arose twice on British Lions rugby tours. A Scot,
Michael Campbell-Lamerton, then skipper of the 1966 Lions in Australia
and New Zealand, left himself out, after consultation with the team
management, of a Test match.
A later Lions' captain, Ciaran Fitzgerald of Ireland, pointedly
declined to do the same when the vast majority of observers considered
he was an inferior hooker to Scotland's Colin Deans. But should either
player have been put in that position? I think not.
To me, the notion that players should also be selectors is absurd. By
all means let their views be sought, but to require them to pass
judgement on club-mates, friends, sometimes even relatives, is asking
far too much.
Nor am I a great fan of selection committees. The late, great Jimmy
Wardhaugh used to amuse with his tale of how, having been chosen to play
for Scotland, he was given personal instruction by one of the selectors,
a butcher from Montrose, as I recall, on how to take a throw-in.
Ian McLauchlan swears that, after he was dropped from the Scottish
international rugby team, all five selectors solemnly assured him they
had voted for his inclusion.
We will learn this afternoon the XV who will be wearing the Scottish
jerseys against Canada a week on Saturday, and will be assured, no
doubt, that every selection was unanimous. Perhaps, but it would be a
lot easier to believe if it was the team manager's sole responsibility.
For that is what I believe is the correct method. The football
authorities have got it right -- Craig Brown, Terry Venables, Jack
Charlton have been chosen to produce successful sides, and they have to
be allowed to choose them.
English cricket has far too many chiefs, but no commander. If Raymond
Illingworth is to play that role he must be given the responsibility of
selecting the side which takes the field.
In an amateur sport like rugby, do different criteria apply? Well, let
us not argue the ''amateur'' label, but rather look at what is happening
in the real world. Does anyone other than Jack Rowell pick the England
side? Does Ian McGeechan have control of team selection at Northampton?
Of course he does.
These men will listen to advice, they will have their spies in all the
leading clubs up and down the country, they will talk to the coaches and
maybe even to the players but ultimately the buck will stop with them.
Just as soccer dispensed with the services of the butcher and the
baker so, too, will international rugby. We are moving towards a
professional team manager charged with putting the side he wants into
action.
I am happy to live with that prospect. One singer, one song.
* GOING to the dogs on a Sunday would once have been considered the
ultimate sin. Yet I have no qualms about releasing the hare on the
Sabbath.
Sunday horseracing will be with us soon on a regular basis, and I
suspect rugby will consider staging some games on that day, too. This
already happens in France.
Of course there must be consideration given to those who have
religious objections to taking part. But it is a hardly logical to
insist that players must take part in Sunday training sessions yet say
it is immoral to play an actual match.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article