Mark Richardson: Clash no reason to stone Crowe

Nowhere in the job description for a national selector do I see the need for a 'must get on with John Bracewell' clause.

Passion for the game, an understanding of the finer points of cricket, experience of top-level cricket, a comprehensive knowledge of Black Caps incumbents and promising players, a desire to see New Zealand win and an enthusiasm to add value: these are all attributes I'd imagine New Zealand Cricket would like to see in the successful applicant for the vacant position of Black Caps selector.

There'll be applicants stronger in some of these attributes and weaker in others but it appears that the most important attribute is the applicant's relationship with Bracewell.

Why else would Martin Crowe, a man strong in all of the above but weak in the 'gets on' factor, get the return-to-sender treatment upon expression of interest to the vacant selector's position?

It's understandable that his role with Sky TV could generate a conflict of interest but the negative repercussions of that are mainly faced by Sky and not NZC.

In fact it may even save NZC from some criticism over selection and tactics that they have taken over the course of the last year from various members of the Sky commentary team - criticism which appears to have re-opened and deepened any wounds that may or may not exist between our '80s legends.

Sky appears to think that this possible conflict of interest can be managed but NZC believe not. Without doubt it would help if the selection panel members have a good working relationship between themselves and NZC. I'd hope that the process for selecting a player is strong enough to overcome clashes of personality within the panel. But it obviously isn't.

Good decision-making process involves soliciting all points of view, debating them and settling on the most appropriate course of action.

In a deadlock situation someone needs to cast the deciding vote and that is why there is often a convener, who in this case is Bracewell. I have no problem with this. Under the Black Caps' structure the coach is held accountable for the team's performance, so why not ensure he gets to select and work with the players he wants?

After all, it is in his best interests to select the best players for the best team or he's down the road quick smart - in theory, anyway.

However, if NZC insist on a panel of selectors but it is most important that they appease the 'main man', then the system is flawed. The current panel are far from those types of people.

If the process is meant to be democratic, then it does the players a disservice to put the 'get on' factor ahead of other selection criteria for a panel member.

- HERALD ON SUNDAY