Selection Policy (IMO)

[Lillian Thomson]

The problem is they cant. The failure rates of selections are far too high.

I can eyeball and judge players I really like and rate. However its impossible to take that as an indication of productivity.

At all levels, guys that look great in the nets may not produce in games like others who are less impressive.

Looking good and performing well are 2 seperate things and sometime people (including selectors) get seduced by how a player looks.

A system has to be based on metit to have any credibility. Randomly picking players on hunches and then claiming victory when a small proportion succeed is a mess. It also hurts hope and moral of those that actually do perform.

No one has suggested picking players after watching them in the nets for 20 minutes. David Gower was obviously going to be a Test player at the age of 17 but on the merits of productivity in County Cricket we'd still be waiting, perhaps Harry Pilling should have been chosen instead.
If the England team is chosen on that basis you have an bigger mess. This sort of idealogy might work if you have a lot of high class performers demanding selection but when you're struggling to find 11 proven international cricketers you have to occasionally use your judgement based on something other than stats. There was a period of three or four years when Mal Loye would have been the first name on the list.

 

[Goughy]

No one has suggested picking players after watching them in the nets for 20 minutes. David Gower was obviously going to be a Test player at the age of 17 but on the merits of productivity in County Cricket we'd still be waiting, perhaps Harry Pilling should have been chosen instead.
If the England team is chosen on that basis you have an bigger mess. This sort of idealogy might work if you have a lot of high class performers demanding selection but when you're struggling to find 11 proven international cricketers you have to occasionally use your judgement based on something other than stats. There was a period of three or four years when Mal Loye would have been the first name on the list.

What are you talking about? Pilling has a below average record. There is no justification for mentioning a player like that. Its just silly

As for Gower, Ive always said there is always room for a player that the selectors believe to be a rare talent. However, this for this rating to hold any value then they must be special. Something the likes of Lathwell, Hollioake and Bopara were obviously not at their time of selection.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

What are you talking about? Pilling has a below average record. There is no justification for mentioning a player like that. Its just silly

As for Gower, Ive always said there is always room for a player that the selectors believe to be a rare talent. However, this for this rating to hold any value then they must be special. Something the likes of Lathwell, Hollioake and Bopara were obviously not at their time of selection.

Pilling was just a throw away name of a solid county player of the time, maybe not a great example but there were plenty of batsman scoring more runs than Gower had done at the time he was picked, or indeed ever did at County level. Mark Lathwell was chosen because he had performed in County Cricket and on an A-Tour. Hollioake was worth taking a chance on but the only reason the likes of Bopara get chosen is because of a complete dearth of proven international quality players that are available. In the 50's and 60's even someone like Collingwood would have been very fortunate to have had a prolonged Test career.

 

[Goughy]

Pilling was just a throw away name of a solid county player of the time, maybe not a great example but there were plenty of batsman scoring more runs than Gower had done at the time he was picked, or indeed ever did at County level. Mark Lathwell was chosen because he had performed in County Cricket and on an A-Tour. Hollioake was worth taking a chance on but the only reason the likes of Bopara get chosen is because of a complete dearth of proven international quality players that are available. In the 50's and 60's even someone like Collingwood would have been very fortunate to have had a prolonged Test career.

Lathwell had 1 FC hundred in England before the season he was selected. Hardly proven at all in CC.

Noone with 2 eyes thought Ben Hollioake was remotely Test class. He was barely FC standard. Im not sure what chance they were taking, it was a guaranteed failure. Medium pacer that liked to hit the ball hard but had a terrible technique but good energy and charisma. Perfect example of the type that seduces fans and selectors but never repays the faith. The worry is that Wright is an equally deceptive player.

Id be interested in your thoughts on Crawley. IMO, he had his issues but didnt get nearly as many caps as he should. It was during the period of having to tread on egg shells and any failure meant you could be out of the team and then back in 2 games later. Very difficult preiod for players to perform with confidence and consistency.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Lathwell had 1 FC hundred in England before the season he was selected. Hardly proven at all in CC.

Noone with 2 eyes thought Ben Hollioake was remotely Test class. He was barely FC standard. Im not sure what chance they were taking, it was a guaranteed failure. Medium pacer that liked to hit the ball hard but had a terrible technique but good energy and charisma. Perfect example of the type that seduces fans and selectors but never repays the faith. The worry is that Wright is an equally deceptive player.

Id be interested in your thoughts on Crawley. IMO, he had his issues but didnt get nearly as many caps as he should. It was during the period of having to tread on egg shells and any failure meant you could be out of the team and then back in 2 games later. Very difficult preiod for players to perform with confidence and consistency.

Lathwell scored a lot of runs, centuries or not and had a good A-Tour, although he admitted himself he wasn't really ready. I disagree about Holioake, in his mid teens he had great raw talent that could have developed, whether he should have been left to develope in County Cricket rather than being thrown in against Australia is I suppose part of the point.
I don't mind admitting that John Crawley is one I got completely wrong. I was never fooled by the hype surrounding Graham Hick but I saw John Crawley as potentially a genuine Test batsman who was going to be a fixture in the Test team for quite a few years. He appeared to have everything and ended up achieving nothing.

 

[Goughy]

Lathwell scored a lot of runs, centuries or not and had a good A-Tour, although he admitted himself he wasn't really ready. I disagree about Holioake, in his mid teens he had great raw talent that could have developed, whether he should have been left to develope in County Cricket rather than being thrown in against Australia is I suppose part of the point.
I don't mind admitting that John Crawley is one I got completely wrong. I was never fooled by the hype surrounding Graham Hick but I saw John Crawley as potentially a genuine Test batsman who was going to be a fixture in the Test team for quite a few years. He appeared to have everything and ended up achieving nothing.

We will agree to disagree about Hollioake. He is of my age and I never saw much special with bat or ball. Was a charismatic and confident young man, but got by on energy with both the stick and ball rather than technique.

However, Crawley is an interesting case. It could be that 3 highly promising players all massively disappointed (Crawley, Hick and Ramprakash) because they were all not good enough.

or more likely, IMO, the culture of failure and blame in the England dressing room made success very unlikely.

None of them were perfect but the fancy of throwing them to the wolves on each failure eroded confidence, no feeling of security and over hyped their weaknesses.

Id bet money that given a different environment (though this is pure speculation that I dont claim to have evidence of) that Hick, Ramprakash and Crawley could have been close to the best English middle order since the late-50s/early 60s.

As I said, it maybe the case that all 3 failed for their own reasons indep of each other. However, I find it more likely that their failures were closely related.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

We will agree to disagree about Hollioake. He is of my age and I never saw much special with bat or ball. Was a charismatic and confident young man, but got by on energy with both the stick and ball rather than technique.

However, Crawley is an interesting case. It could be that 3 highly promising players all massively disappointed (Crawley, Hick and Ramprakash) because they were all not good enough.

or more likely, IMO, the culture of failure and blame in the England dressing room made success very unlikely.

None of them were perfect but the fancy of throwing them to the wolves on each failure eroded confidence, no feeling of security and over hyped their weaknesses.

Id bet money that given a different environment (though this is pure speculation that I dont claim to have evidence of) that Hick, Ramprakash and Crawley could have been close to the best English middle order since the late-50s/early 60s.

As I said, it maybe the case that all 3 failed for their own reasons indep of each other. However, I find it more likely that their failures were closely related.

I was never convinced by Hick even before he first qualified. That's not to say I thought he would average in the low 30's but he was built up to be our Richards/Tendulkar type of extra special player and he just never looked it even in County Cricket despite all the runs. He actually had a short period in Tests where he did reasonably well but he rarely dominated or looked really sound at the crease even then. Crawley on the other hand looked really special - though still not a Richards/Tendulkar/Lara - but turned out not to be. I wasn't as hopeful as you over Ramprakash either, but it's an interesting theory though.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

This is for both ODI and Test cricket. I would apply it more strictly to Test cricket and give a little (and a mean a little) more leeway in ODI cricket

- A player must earn the right to be selected by performing at a level above that of his peers. That means consistent good performance over a period of time that is well above average. Average domestic performance with the hope of success at a higher level is a a) a proven massively flawed strategy and b) removes the desire for players to strive to improve as selection isnt based on excellence but other factors. There is transparancy in merit based selection which doesnt exist in other methods.

- Selection on potential and for the future is a big danger. It hurts moral as experienced players that have been performing are excluded for an unproven junior player and the furture never actually arrives with often one 'potential' player getting replaced by another, who in turn is replaced by another. The potential is seldom actualised. Selection of raw, young talent should be a rare occurance and selectors should be staking their reputaion on it as it is a high risk choice they are making. I dont exclude the possibility of a young raw player being selected, just that it should be reserved for players of 'special' talent (ie not one a year)

- International cricket is where players learn about International cricket, especially the mental side and the step up in class. As it is, this is difficult. What isnt needed is a player with limited success, limited knowledge of their own ability, limited skills and often technical issues having to learn about cricket itself rather than just the step upto Int cricket.

- Once selected a player must be given a fair run in the team. What is fair can be decided

- If they are a failure after a period in the team then they shouldnt be selected for a while and sent back to domestic cricket to re-tool their game and re-earn the right to selection.

- Once dropped a player goes back to domestic cricket and isnt selected again until they re prove themselves and re-earn the right. This keeps players hungry and selection honest.

- If a young player is selected then they need to be able to contribute at the required level straight away and need to be a 'wunderkind' or once a generation player. Too often (in English cricket) young players are selected when they are not ready and have not earned it after a lot of hype and it ruins their careers.

- The other type of selection is that of a role player. This is acceptable as the overall balance of the team is priority. However, there needs to be a special skill set that this player needs to provide. eg batting allrounder, hardhitting wicketkeeper or aggressive opener.

- Too often a selection is justified on something like "well he bowled fast the other day" or "he played a good knock last week". Occasional performances mean nothing. All decent players can have special days. Only the good ones can do it regularly. Hand picking the events of a few (or less) games as justification of selection is a fraudulent representation of that player.

I wonder if the England selectors saw this post before they picked Darren Pattinson.

 

[Richard]

Could just be a "no", you'd think.

 

[Flem274*]

Who is Darren Pattinson? I haven't seen him mentioned on here before.

 

[Richard]

That's because he was a nobody grade cricketer until a couple of months or so ago.

And that is why his selection is such a shocker, regardless of what he does this Test.

 

[Flem274*]

I hate your selectors-you could have played Harmison, Mahmood, Plunkett, Tredwell, Bopara etc against us in the tests and instead you serve us up an in-form Anderson and Strauss and Pietersen and in the process make your team look like a bunch of lower table bashers then go and play steaming piles of rubbish against good teams and get embarrased in the process.

Not that I'm labelling Patty rubbish, first he actualy has to play some cricket. Does he have a decent record?

 

[GIMH]

Averaging in the 20s this season in FC, apparently. When you pick someone at his age you would think you are picking a seasoned county pro, but no, he made his FC debut for Victoria last winter

What I really want to know, though, is how is his accent??

 

[Richard]

As Australian as he is, obviously.

Personally that doesn't really bother me, because I presume if Pattinson didn't want to play for England he'd turn-down the call - a la Andrew Symonds, who was cunningly forced to choose by Raymond Illingworth in 1995/96.

But some have got high-and-mighty about "WTF's an Australian playing for us for?" The one thing that makes no sense, though, is to pretend he's British, 'cos he ain't.

 

[GIMH]

Are his folks Australian?

 

[Richard]

Don't think so, but may be wrong.

In any case, IIRR Cameron Burge's folks are British - try telling him he's anything but Australian!

 

[GIMH]

Haha, I might just do that