Date-stamped : 13 Jun96 - 22:16 14 June 1996 Inheritance business taxes imagination in some quarters Ted Dexter, former chairman of the England selectors, fires shots of his own at successor IT WAS not my intention to do or say anything about Ray Illingworth`s stint as chairman of selectors - until this book of his, One-Man Committee. It is supposed to be a frank personal record with justification for certain controversial actions, and to that extent passes muster. But when I read that my pal Raymond "inherited very little from Ted Dexter", and that be could "begin with a clean sheet and im- pose different selection policies", it is time for some frank speaking of my own. The fact is that nothing much has changed at all. Our plain- speaking leader has shuttled from selector to team manager and back again without any properly defined new selection policy whatsoever. And if there has been a new face or two in the Eng- land team, it is extraordinary how quickly they have withered on the vine and been replaced, not by new blood but by the same old faces as before. Starting in the summer of 1994, five players from England`s winning team in Barbados were unceremoniously dropped - Thorpe, Lewis, Russell, Caddick and Such - and re- placed by Gooch, White, Rhodes, DeFreitas and Tufnell. But by the end of the season, four of the Dexter West Indian party had been recalled to the colours - Thorpe, Tufnell, Malcolm and Salisbury - and not one of Illingworth`s "new policy" five is still in the side only two years later. By the time of England`s next major victory against Aus- tralia in Adelaide, the England attack was back exactly where it was when I left it with DeFreitas, Lewis (debut 1990), Fraser (1989), Malcolm (1989) and Tufnell (1990): these last four all given their first Test match chances in my time. The only new faces were Crawley and Rhodes, the latter to be soon replaced yet again by the trusty old Jack Russell. What Illingworth did inherit, as I did, was a county system which was increasingly self-serving and, as he is in the process of finding out, governed by county club chairmen who find lit- tle time to give either physical or moral support to whoever is in charge of the England team. If there is indeed a hidden "clean sheet" policy, it is hard to understand how it became necessary to drop 11, yes, a whole team, from the party who returned recently from South Africa, i.e., Crawley, Ramprakash, Fraser, Illingworth, Martin, Stewart, Smith, Ilott, Gough, Watkinson and Malcolm. The facts suggest that the current chairman of selectors has in reality been groping along from match to match, picking from a pool of players ill-adapted to Test cricket and dogged by inju- ries galore in much the same way as I was forced to do, and indeed Peter May before me. He may not have inherited much from me, but why should anyone expect an inheritance anyway. Had England been holding the Ashes and the World Cup I would still be doing the job. It is in the nature of things that each new chairman starts on a low note. What Illingworth did inherit, as I did, was a county system which was increasingly self-serving and, as he is in the process of finding out, governed by county club chairmen who find lit- tle time to give either physical or moral support to whoever is in charge of the England team. If I knew that I had a reserved seat at the Test matches I counted myself quite lucky! SO what of the new dawn? It is claimed that England`s ex- cellent victory at Edgbaston was a triumph for more youthful selection and selectors. This theory stands examination to an extent, with six of the over-30s from South Africa getting the heave-ho - Fraser, Stewart, Smith, Illingworth, Watkinson and Malcolm. Perhaps Ray Illingworth should have studied my memoranda more carefully about less mobile players being a liability on overseas tours. If there really is a new selection policy, then it may be to kiss goodbye to the notion of 21-year-old England cricketers for good, especially when we remember that Hussain and Lewis, the two "young" heroes of Edgbaston, are now no less than 28. How youthful were the changes on analysis? The average age of the six new selections was still 26 as against 29 for all those axed from South Africa. Whatever happened to the old adage that 29 was a peak sporting age, especially in cricket? Another age-related factor caught my eye, noting that the three debutants - Mullally (26), Patel (25) and Irani (24) - were significantly more senior than the likes of Hussein (21), Lewis (21), Fraser (23), Crawley (23), Ramprakash (22) and Gough (23) when they first played. If there really is a new selection policy, then it may be to kiss goodbye to the notion of 21-year-old England cricketers for good, especially when we remember that Hussain and Lewis, the two "young" heroes of Edgbaston, are now no less than 28. Will these two also be seen as over the hill in a couple of years` time? Is the wear and tear of the modern game going to reduce the natural span of an England Test player to about half a dozen years - from, say, 24 to 29? If so, the selectors will have fewer than ever players to pick from, which may be the essence of a new policy, but not necessarily one with quite the bright future heralded at Edgbaston. A couple of final thoughts. I was guilty of not properly con- sulting with Peter May when I took over the reins, and I was definitely not on Illingworth`s phone list when he took over. Perhaps the handover in September to the new man should be marked by more cordiality and communication than hitherto. As to the single player of stature to emerge during Illingworth`s time, Dominic Cork, I saw him bowl for England Under-19 at Taunton in 1989. I sent him on three of his four A team tours and personally visited them. Cork made his debut for England at the age of 24 and was immediately successful. I call that a major inheritance. Source :: Electronic Telegraph (http.//www.telegraph.co.uk) Contributed by Shash (shs2@*.cwru.edu)