Ishant Sharma...overcoached?!

[DaRick]

RP Singh gets the ball to swing both conventional and reverse. Now I know there are problems with his accuracy and ability to bowl cutters when the ball is not swinging but he bowls at a decent pace and for my money has done a decent while not tremendous job for India after being made to lead the attack with very little experience. I am not convinced about him just yet, but I feel that he has far more potential that Irfan Pathan who IMO is merely a poor mans James Franklin.

I actually wonder whether RP Singh has more potential than Irfan Pathan. Their records against Test-class teams are both poor, but Pathan appears to have more control. On the other hand, RP Singh can move the red ball more. I've not seen him generate as much reverse swing as conventional swing. Even when he has, it has often been in the middle of a dross-ridden spell.

Here are my definitive thoughts on RP Singh from a few months back (except now I think that Anderson is better):

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1523190&postcount=1138

Now if Praveen Kumar cannot swing the red ball, I cannot on earth fathom how a bowler that bowls at barely 130ks can manage to take 8 5 wicket hauls at an avg of 21.5 in 25 FC games in India. I very much doubt that he cant swing the red ball and the only way we will know whether or not he can is by playing him at the test level. The only worrying attribute is his pace, but if he is a smart bowler who can bowl cutters and and slower balls, I think he will be just fine.

I never said that he couldn't move the red ball, I just made a general statement that moving the red ball is more difficult than moving the white ball. TBH, I've never seen Praveen Kumar with a red ball, which is why I didn't try to make any inferences about his ability to move it.

As far as Mitchell is concerned, the lad averages almost 32 in FC cricket. Someone in Australia should have bothered showing up to watch FC cricket to see whether he could actually swing the red cherry before drafting him into the test side.

Yeah. I support him (to an extent), but I find little to fault in your statement.

Australian selectors are really amongst the worst in the world and I shudder to think what might have happened had they been in charge of a team like NZ.

I'm unsure whether they actually are. While they have made some bizarre calls (playing Brad Williams in Colombo, persisting with an out-of-form Jason Gillespie, mishandling the careers of both Simon Katich and Darren Lehmann, etc.), they have made some pretty inspired ones, too (debuting Stuart Clark, marginalising Shaun Tait where possible, persisting with Mark Taylor in 1996/97). There have been surprisingly few duds selected in the Australian side - even then, most of them were selected for decent reasons (injury, horses-for-courses, retirements, etc.)

FWIW, Johnson averages 33 in Tests and 26 in ODI's. Not great and he could certainly do with a rest to give others a go (i.e - a brief dropping), but not definitively poor, either.

 

[tooextracool]

I actually wonder whether RP Singh has more potential than Irfan Pathan. Their records against Test-class teams are both poor, but Pathan appears to have more control. On the other hand, RP Singh can move the red ball more. I've not seen him generate as much reverse swing as conventional swing. Even when he has, it has often been in the middle of a dross-ridden spell.

Here are my definitive thoughts on RP Singh from a few months back (except now I think that Anderson is better):

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1523190&postcount=1138

Pathan is essentially your run of the mill left arm swing bowler capable of bowling inswingers to right hand batsmen at medium-fast pace with a semblence of accuracy. When the ball is not swinging, he has usually been cannon fodder and his test record resembles that.
RP Singh on the other hand has shown the ability to reverse the ball in England and IMO seems to be a smarter bowler than Irfan as well. And no he doesnt generate as much reverse as conventional but how many others do? Very few bowlers in the world can reverse the ball consistently and in Australia bar Clark at Brisbane no one managed to get the ball to reverse for the entire tour. Yes, so he did average 39 in the series and he did on several occasions start well and throw it all away, but there was enough in his performance to suggest that he has potential for the future not to mention that he did have the pressure of leading the attack heaped upon him. Mind theres a difference bowling to the likes of Hayden, Jaques, Ponting, Hussey, Clark, Symonds and Gilchrist and bowling to Jaffer, Sehwag, an out of sorts Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly, Yuvraj, Laxman and Dhoni as Mitchell had to do. Mitchell's statistics flatter him for the series given that everytime he came on to bowl (assuming Dravid wasnt at the crease) there was a patently obvious decline in the pressure built up by the likes of Lee and Clark.

I never said that he couldn't move the red ball, I just made a general statement that moving the red ball is more difficult than moving the white ball. TBH, I've never seen Praveen Kumar with a red ball, which is why I didn't try to make any inferences about his ability to move it.

I have read in articles that he does swing the red-ball about as much as the white and in both directions. Personally, bowlers who can do that are always going to be a handful and i think hes worth a shot.

I'm unsure whether they actually are. While they have made some bizarre calls (playing Brad Williams in Colombo, persisting with an out-of-form Jason Gillespie, mishandling the careers of both Simon Katich and Darren Lehmann, etc.), they have made some pretty inspired ones, too (debuting Stuart Clark, marginalising Shaun Tait where possible, persisting with Mark Taylor in 1996/97). There have been surprisingly few duds selected in the Australian side - even then, most of them were selected for decent reasons (injury, horses-for-courses, retirements, etc.)

FWIW, Johnson averages 33 in Tests and 26 in ODI's. Not great and he could certainly do with a rest to give others a go (i.e - a brief dropping), but not definitively poor, either.

Not the worst selection no. However, I firmly believe that you could pick Joe Clark/e from Australian domestic cricket and he would still score decently in International cricket such is the high standard of Australian domestic cricket at the moment. However, this decade I would consider all of the following to be downright stupid moves made by the selection committee:

Nathan Hauritz
the dropping of Michael Bevan
The Simon Katich scenario
Brad Williams/Nathan Bracken over Michael Kasprowicz
the reselection of Nathan Bracken
the non selection of Macgill during the Ashes of 2005
the handling of Damian Martyn post Ashes 05
the handling of Martin Love

For the management to have made that many selection blunders with the quality of players that they have at their disposal is just shocking. Players like Watson are picked and made to bat at 7 in ODIs while players like Katich are picked in the wrong form of the game and made to bat out of position at the top of the order despite there being others in the side (Martyn) who could do the job better.

 

[sanga1337]

Disagree with Australia having the worst selectors. Personally think Englands one day slections and Pakistan's persistance with Afridi is worse.

 

[Richard]

TBH, selectors The World over are simply almost routinely poor. It's unbelievable that such amateurs can be paid to do such an important job.

I've said it many, many times but there's a good few posters on this forum who'd do a far better job with pretty much every international team.

 

[Manee]

Disagree with Australia having the worst selectors. Personally think Englands one day slections and Pakistan's persistance with Afridi is worse.

Pakistan's persistance with Afridi was not a bad move, he has been a very good ODI bowler in the past few years.

 

[Goughy]

TBH, selectors The World over are simply almost routinely poor. It's unbelievable that such amateurs can be paid to do such an important job.

I've said it many, many times but there's a good few posters on this forum who'd do a far better job with pretty much every international team.

The hardest thing about selectors is their committee style functioning. Different guys will have their favourites and any team will naturally be a compromise.

I wouldnt object too much with a soccer style coach that picked the team and was personally responsible for results. Win = Hero, lose = Dole office. A group of advisors would be needed to report back from watching players but other sports rely on scouts so cricket shouldnt be any different.

 

[DaRick]

Pathan is essentially your run of the mill left arm swing bowler capable of bowling inswingers to right hand batsmen at medium-fast pace with a semblence of accuracy. When the ball is not swinging, he has usually been cannon fodder and his test record resembles that.

The same applies to RP Singh, as well.

RP Singh on the other hand has shown the ability to reverse the ball in England and IMO seems to be a smarter bowler than Irfan as well.

From watching them both in Australia, I'm skeptical. Bowling full and wide deliveries to Andrew Symonds and digging them in short (two things you should not do to Symonds) is not intelligent bowling. IMO, he simply lacks the control and variety to bowl intelligently.

And no he doesnt generate as much reverse as conventional but how many others do?

Mitchell Johnson, of all people, was reversing the red ball more - particularly against Sri Lanka in Hobart.

Very few bowlers in the world can reverse the ball consistently and in Australia bar Clark at Brisbane no one managed to get the ball to reverse for the entire tour.

That's untrue, actually. Mitchell Johnson and Brett Lee both got reverse swing. In both cases, their ability to bowl 145+ km/h helped them. Even a really, really crappy Shaun Tait managed to get a little bit when he pitched it up.

However, both Lee and Johnson reversed the ball more during the Sri Lankan series than the Indian series.

I saw RP Singh reverse the ball once or twice, but mostly in Perth. That's why he was terrible later on in Sydney. He lost all control and ability to move the ball.

Yes, so he did average 39 in the series and he did on several occasions start well and throw it all away, but there was enough in his performance to suggest that he has potential for the future not to mention that he did have the pressure of leading the attack heaped upon him.

Fair enough, but not bowling in Adelaide (an utter road) also helped him...which is what many who have overrated him forget.

At any rate, I feel that Sreesanth and Ishant Sharma have more potential than he does, as may Praveen Kumar.

Mind theres a difference bowling to the likes of Hayden, Jaques, Ponting, Hussey, Clark, Symonds and Gilchrist and bowling to Jaffer, Sehwag, an out of sorts Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly, Yuvraj, Laxman and Dhoni as Mitchell had to do.

The Indian batting line-up was not quite as good as the Australian one on the whole, but I still feel that Johnson was, overall, better than RP Singh. The six runs difference between them makes up for the disparaties in their batting line-ups.

Mitchell's statistics flatter him for the series given that everytime he came on to bowl (assuming Dravid wasnt at the crease) there was a patently obvious decline in the pressure built up by the likes of Lee and Clark.

I'm unsure about this argument. A lot of the time, Johnson was actually given the new ball (a poor tactic, but relevant in this case), thus, Clark could not build up pressure and allow him more wickets until later. In RP Singh's favour, though, he had no equivalent of Clark. Then again, he never had to bowl in Adelaide, either.

I have read in articles that he does swing the red-ball about as much as the white and in both directions. Personally, bowlers who can do that are always going to be a handful and i think hes worth a shot.

Fair enough.

Not the worst selection no. However, I firmly believe that you could pick Joe Clark/e from Australian domestic cricket and he would still score decently in International cricket such is the high standard of Australian domestic cricket at the moment.

I think that Greg Blewett and Matthew Elliott may disagree with you there.

However, this decade I would consider all of the following to be downright stupid moves made by the selection committee:

Nathan Hauritz

Yes. He was selected for a good reason, but he should never have been on that tour to begin with.

the dropping of Michael Bevan

He was dropped multiple times. In 1994/95, he had problems with the short ball and couldn't score runs, leading to his dropping. Even when he was re-selected, he often struggled, with the exception of the 1996/97 WI series. He was a good chinaman bowler, though.

The Simon Katich scenario

Yes.

Brad Williams/Nathan Bracken over Michael Kasprowicz

Yes.

the reselection of Nathan Bracken

No. In ODI's, in particular, his re-selection was inspired. His selection for Brisbane was both justified (swing-friendly conditions) and repaid with four cheap wickets. Kaspr was past his best by that stage, anyway.

the non selection of Macgill during the Ashes of 2005

Probably. He could've played at Old Trafford, but I can't think of anywhere else.

the handling of Damian Martyn post Ashes 05

Let's see: his dropping was harsh, but truth be told, his fielding was poor and his footwork was shoddy. He was inexplicably reselected, but tempoarily justified the selector's faith with a match-winning century, but should not have been selected against England, after a poor Bangladesh tour.

the handling of Martin Love

Yes, although he didn't do a great deal against Test-class nations.

For the management to have made that many selection blunders with the quality of players that they have at their disposal is just shocking. Players like Watson are picked and made to bat at 7 in ODIs

Yeah, this was a mistake. The selectors did eventually realise this, though.

while players like Katich are picked in the wrong form of the game and made to bat out of position at the top of the order despite there being others in the side (Martyn) who could do the job better.

I don't think that Damien Martyn has had as much international experience at opening.

 

[Richard]

He was dropped multiple times. In 1994/95, he had problems with the short ball and couldn't score runs, leading to his dropping. Even when he was re-selected, he often struggled, with the exception of the 1996/97 WI series. He was a good chinaman bowler, though.

I imagine tec was referring to him being dropped from the ODI team in 2003/04. No-one could have many qualms about the several occasions he was omitted from the Test team.

Let's see: his dropping was harsh, but truth be told, his fielding was poor and his footwork was shoddy. He was inexplicably reselected, but tempoarily justified the selector's faith with a match-winning century, but should not have been selected against England, after a poor Bangladesh tour.

I've always thought the Martyn situation circa 2005/06 was one of the most baffling I've ever seen. There is no way in a million years he deserved to be dropped from the Test team after 2005 - aside from the fact (as one Linda Philipps' sig has since quoted ever since) most receive more than 4 Tests' grace for a lack of runs, there were the number of bad decisions he got to factor in too. He never deserved to be dropped for Shane Watson at that time (as Lehmann hadn't for Watson's Test debut, incidentally).

Then his recall, after a poor season for WA and a ODI tournament that plainly laid bare his always-volatile state of mind - the fact he basically just came in and swung from the start, barely seeming to care whether he scored or not (I presumed his poor WA form was down to similar reasons) - was probably even worse. The fact he then performed well in SA added to the baffling-ness of it.

TBH, I thought - the volatility striking again - he jumped too soon against England.

 

[Prince EWS]

No-one could have many qualms about the several occasions he was omitted from the Test team.

DWTA. I think his failings can be put down to mishandling as much as any technical or temperamental issues he had. He was never really given the extended run his First Class record demanded and he ridiculously only played four Tests on the subcontinent.

After one good series against Pakistan and half a bad series against England he was harshly dropped from the team early on. I'd argue that's not the consistent run you should generally give a young player with an excellent First Class record but it's something Australian selectors have done with many players so I won't criticise it too much.

What really baffles me is what happened after that. Against Ambrose, Walsh and Bishop on fast Australian pitches, Bevan averaged 55. A man supposedly incapable of playing the short ball. Even throughout the series the commentators criticised him through that series - not because of what he was doing, but because of what they perceived him as. Whenever he'd trudge out it'd be "Oh he won't last long, the bowlers will bowl here and set this field..". Despite all this negative public pressure, he was awesome. Two series later though and he's axed yet again. At 28 he was discarded and after he played one more Test in 1999 he was completely and somewhat unfairly written off a Test failure and never got another look in despite scoring ridiculously heavily at First Class level and performing brilliantly for Australia in one day cricket. As the bowlers capable of exploiting his supposed weakness (which I really don't buy into ITBT) became fewer in number, he was still ignored. Even on tours of India and Sri Lanka where he should have theoretically been awesome even if he did have a weakness against the short ball, he was brushed.

Compare this to way the likes of Hayden, Martyn and even Lehmann were treated when they failed in the same period. In reality it didn't cost Australia much at all and that was probably the logic - "we don't need to get the best out of Bevan to win Tests" - but it certainly cost the cricketing world AFAIC and quite possibly a away series win against India too, although that's even more debatable than the rest of what I've said.

 

[Richard]

Thing is, though, whenever he was dropped his replacements performed well and new gaps didn't exactly open themselves often.

Think - these are the "gaps" that opened-up in Australia's middle-order during Bevan's time (we'll say his chances of a recall had passed at 32 years of age, that'd be the 2003/04 season UIMM.

Border's retirement - he played here, then was dropped for Blewett who scored a century on debut.
Boon's (somewhat unfair) axing - he played again here.
Ponting's first axing - Langer got back in here. Not sure what you'd say to that, though obviously Langer was never a batsman fit to lace Bevan's bootlaces.
Langer's almost immediate axing - he played again here then was quickly dropped for Blewett again.
Ponting's second axing and Blewett's second - Lehmann debuted here, I certainly can't believe anyone could overly qualm that? Then Langer played too - that's more questionable.
Ponting's third axing - Lehmann again this time, ditto the first Lehmann.
Lehmann's almost immediate axing - Blewett again.
Langer's axing - Martyn got the chance this time. Objections?
Mark Waugh's axing - Lehmann again.

Not sure how many of these occasions you'd have had Bevan instead of he who was picked?

 

[Prince EWS]

Thing is, though, whenever he was dropped his replacements performed well and new gaps didn't exactly open themselves often.

Think - these are the "gaps" that opened-up in Australia's middle-order during Bevan's time (we'll say his chances of a recall had passed at 32 years of age, that'd be the 2003/04 season UIMM.

Border's retirement - he played here, then was dropped for Blewett who scored a century on debut.
Boon's (somewhat unfair) axing - he played again here.
Ponting's first axing - Langer got back in here. Not sure what you'd say to that, though obviously Langer was never a batsman fit to lace Bevan's bootlaces.
Langer's almost immediate axing - he played again here then was quickly dropped for Blewett again.
Ponting's second axing and Blewett's second - Lehmann debuted here, I certainly can't believe anyone could overly qualm that? Then Langer played too - that's more questionable.
Ponting's third axing - Lehmann again this time, ditto the first Lehmann.
Lehmann's almost immediate axing - Blewett again.
Langer's axing - Martyn got the chance this time. Objections?
Mark Waugh's axing - Lehmann again.

Not sure how many of these occasions you'd have had Bevan instead of he who was picked?

It's not so much the lack of recalls that bothers me; it's the very fact that he was dropped on the last two occassions he was. Sure he'd had a rough trot in his second last stint but players had been backed through much, much worse and I think the selectors failed to acknowledge that Bevan was such a player deserving of this. His last stint was a solitary Test.

FWIW, regarding the recall opporunities, I never would have selected Langer ahead of him while there was an opening in the side. I should probably have a closer look at his First Class form right at the time of Langer's selections before I say that absolutely, but it's a fairly firm opinion at this stage. The fact that he wasn't even taken on Tour to the subcontinent after his last Test axing remains a sore point with me too; I'd have still selecting him as at least the reserve batsman on such tours right up to (and including) the 2004 tour of Sri Lanka. I certainly don't have any issues with the Martyn or Lehmann selections as they were almost as prolific at Bevan at First Class level (pretty much equal in Lehmann's case, in fact) and hadn't failed at all; it's the Blewett and Langer ones I take issue with and, as I said, Bevan's droppings themselves.

 

[Richard]

Don't forget - many of Bevan's later Tests were as a fourth bowler more than a middle-order batsman. That last one certainly was. This was only ever going to be a short-term measure.

As I say - I agree with you that Langer and Blewett weren't fit to lace his boots as batsmen, at any point - the same applies to Lehmann and it's always baffled me that two batsmen as good as they lost-out to relatively average (comparably) batsmen like Langer and Martyn in having long Test careers. Plus Blewett in having a not-inconsiderable one.

Looking back (I've no memory of the things at the time) Bevan does seem to have got rather raw deals in his Ashes 1994/95 and 1997 axings. But remember this - he possibly only got the chance in 1996/97 because Matthew Elliott had got injured.

 

[social]

Anyone who saw Bevan play test cricket knows that he looked hopelessly put of place (real deer in the headlights stuff) and whilst he didnt do justice to his talent, that was his fault, not the selectors.

\as for his axing from ODIs, it was the correct decision as the Australians were rebuilding for the next WC - it's totally irrelevant that he could've played for a couple more years as that wasnt the criteria for selection at the time

 

[Richard]

If so it seems a little odd, as Australia's selectors haven't terribly often subscribed to that theorem - preferring to pick the best team at the time.

Personally I'm less than sure that was what they had in mind, actually, as Lehmann remained in the side at that time and he was clearly as unlikely as Bevan to make WC2007.

Make no mistake - I prefer to plan for the next World Cup always, and exclusively - I'm not bothered about the results of ODI games, series' and tournaments outside the Cup (and to a lesser extent Champions Trophy) but Australia haven't historically tended to do things that way.

 

[open365]

Ishant Sharma's 'decline' says little about him being 'finished' or tarnished to mediocraty. It is just an example of the contrast between Australian pitches and the flattest of the subcontinent as well as a contrast between the atmospheric conditions which have conventional swing throughout the powerplays in Australia but barely through the opening spells in this Asia Cup. Keep in mind that Ishant's game is not about attrition, it is about pace off the pitch, bounce and seam movement and these do not translate well to very flat pitches. Moreover, bowlers clock higher speeds in Australia - due to whatever, and this translates to simply being able to bowl quicker in Australia which will lead to better performances, taking the mitigating factors into consideration.

Good post.

To add to this, it's probably more just a lack of form than anything, people seem to expect that young talented players can only improve and that they are immune to poor spells.

TBH, selectors The World over are simply almost routinely poor. It's unbelievable that such amateurs can be paid to do such an important job.

I've said it many, many times but there's a good few posters on this forum who'd do a far better job with pretty much every international team.

Agree with this too. The amount of analysis (both statistical and technical) that could be done with the game of cricket is really unlimited, yet I seriously doubt that many of the international selectors even know that stats databases exist. Being appointed to a selection pannel has very little to do with a person's ability to select, it seems to just be a bunch of retired players/people high up in the cricket world who know and are involved with the right people.

When asked about a selection, I don't think the average international selector would come close to being able to recount the quality of statistical data that some of the people on this forum can.

 

[Top_Cat]

Good post.

To add to this, it's probably more just a lack of form than anything, people seem to expect that young talented players can only improve and that they are immune to poor spells.



Agree with this too. The amount of analysis (both statistical and technical) that could be done with the game of cricket is really unlimited, yet I seriously doubt that many of the international selectors even know that stats databases exist. Being appointed to a selection pannel has very little to do with a person's ability to select, it seems to just be a bunch of retired players/people high up in the cricket world who know and are involved with the right people.

When asked about a selection, I don't think the average international selector would come close to being able to recount the quality of statistical data that some of the people on this forum can.

That's because knowing every possible stat, calculated or descriptive, about a player doesn't necessarily tell you something you didn't already know about them. There's a pretty reasonable case that even batting averages, being an arithmetic mean, don't tell the full story anyway. For those of us who work in the actuarial fields, in the absence of proveably accurate measures of whatever it is you're trying to measure, getting a bunch of qualified or experienced people to make decisions about whatever it is turns out to be a pretty defensible methodology for finding solutions anyway. It obviously doesn't have the same checks and balances but generally-speaking, they get it right.

As for people here being better able to select an international team, that's a joke. Let's be serious about this; it's all too easy to Monday-morning quarterback team decisions but when you're actually in the position of having to do it and be accountible for your decisions, it would be far tougher than any of us imagine to get it right. And even then, just because a selected player fails, doesn't mean it was a poor decision; the players have to do their bit too. In terms of Australian teams, Andy Symonds, despite all the luck he's had, has turned out to be one of the better decisions even if it looked a bit iffy at the time. Picking Stuart Clark was an absolutely inspired move, Mike Hussey similar. What the selectors see (that none of us do) is a player's form in the nets, what other players are saying about them ("The deck the other day was a road but Stuey was hitting the gloves hard" or "Huss is nailing his cover drive these days"), how they're presenting themselves when put into pressure situations, etc. All of that probably turns out to be far more important in selection than anything you can mine from StatsGuru.

 

[tooextracool]

Disagree with Australia having the worst selectors. Personally think Englands one day slections and Pakistan's persistance with Afridi is worse.

They're all pretty bad in my book. Australia's selectors merely get away with most of their selections because as i said earlier their domestic cricket is so strong that many of their selections turn to gold. Hussey for example had no business turning out be as good a replacement as he ended up being for michael bevan. However, the fact that he did does not make Bevan's dropping condonable.

 

[tooextracool]

The same applies to RP Singh, as well.



From watching them both in Australia, I'm skeptical. Bowling full and wide deliveries to Andrew Symonds and digging them in short (two things you should not do to Symonds) is not intelligent bowling. IMO, he simply lacks the control and variety to bowl intelligently.

From what I've seen off him I've not been overly impressed by his control but I have been impressed by his variety. He does reverse the ball and he does do a pretty good job going around the wicket (which is unusual for a left hander)

Mitchell Johnson, of all people, was reversing the red ball more - particularly against Sri Lanka in Hobart.


That's untrue, actually. Mitchell Johnson and Brett Lee both got reverse swing. In both cases, their ability to bowl 145+ km/h helped them. Even a really, really crappy Shaun Tait managed to get a little bit when he pitched it up.

However, both Lee and Johnson reversed the ball more during the Sri Lankan series than the Indian series.

I saw RP Singh reverse the ball once or twice, but mostly in Perth. That's why he was terrible later on in Sydney. He lost all control and ability to move the ball..

I was referring to the India- Australia series. I didnt watch the SL-Aus series. AFAIC, Clark was the only one who managed to reverse it for a consistent period in the whole series and that happened in the first test at Brisbane. Mitchell Johnson may have got more reverse than conventional in the SL series but thats only because he doesnt get any conventional swing ITFP.

Fair enough, but not bowling in Adelaide (an utter road) also helped him...which is what many who have overrated him forget.

At any rate, I feel that Sreesanth and Ishant Sharma have more potential than he does, as may Praveen Kumar.

Well one must remember that the bowler that you state has more potential averaged 59 for the series which goes to show that averages arent always an accurate indication of performance. I can understand your POV, personally though I dont think there is a case for RP Singh to be dropped.

The Indian batting line-up was not quite as good as the Australian one on the whole, but I still feel that Johnson was, overall, better than RP Singh. The six runs difference between them makes up for the disparaties in their batting line-ups.

It should also be understood that Johnson essentially took half of his wickets in the series by dismissing lower order batsmen and tailenders while RP Singh spent most of his time taking top order wickets before blowing cold and leaking runs.

I cannot honestly see how anyone who watched the series can consider Mitchell to have bowled well that series. Yes he averaged 33, but the only reason he did that is because he bowled a line and length that encouraged no batsman to even bother playing a shot at him. The only time he caused problems was when an out of sorts Rahul Dravid tried to play at deliveries that he didnt really need to play at ITFP. RP Singh on the other hand attacked the stumps more and ended up being more expensive. I think the fact that RP Singh has a better SR for the series is indicative of that.

I think that Greg Blewett and Matthew Elliott may disagree with you there.

I was referring more to the selections that have been made this decade. While Elliott did play 1 test a few years ago I dont think that was ever a long term selection. Im not saying that there werent players that were picked that failed. Im jus saying that most players on the domestic scene in Australia (especially amongst the batsmen) are likely to do decently at the international level. Consider Symonds for example. Whether Symonds is more deserving of a place in the national side over someone like David Hussey is extremely questionable. However, even he has somehow managed to take the shame away from his selection by performing occasionally at the international level.

He was dropped multiple times. In 1994/95, he had problems with the short ball and couldn't score runs, leading to his dropping. Even when he was re-selected, he often struggled, with the exception of the 1996/97 WI series. He was a good chinaman bowler, though.

As has been suggested, I was referring to his ODI dropping.

No. In ODI's, in particular, his re-selection was inspired. His selection for Brisbane was both justified (swing-friendly conditions) and repaid with four cheap wickets. Kaspr was past his best by that stage, anyway.

I was referring to his test selection. His ODI selection was a rare good un by the Australian mgmt but his selection for the WACA test against SA was beyond logic as was his original selection over Kasprowicz in 03/04

Probably. He could've played at Old Trafford, but I can't think of anywhere else.

Cant see him doing a worse job than what Gillespie was doing throughout that series tbh. England were struggling against Warne, and the likes of Strauss, Flintoff and Jones have exactly struck me as being anything other than clueless against leg spin. Again its mere speculation, but I think it would have been a better selection than picking Tait and/or Gillespie that summer.

Let's see: his dropping was harsh, but truth be told, his fielding was poor and his footwork was shoddy. He was inexplicably reselected, but tempoarily justified the selector's faith with a match-winning century, but should not have been selected against England, after a poor Bangladesh tour.

Martyn's footwork has never been particularly brilliant. The handling of Martyn was very poor indeed. He was made scapegoat for what was a collective failure by all the Australian players during the Ashes series. He was one of a few players who wasnt worked out during the series and had several poor umpiring decisions that went against him. Then, he was inexplicably brought back when he had done nothing of what he was supposed to have done to regain his place.

Yes, although he didn't do a great deal against Test-class nations.

Tbf he didnt get much of a chance to do so. From the little i saw of him he looked like he had the tools to succeed at the international level, but I am unsure how the likes of Katich, Clarke and even Symonds managed to get in line ahead of him. I think that there are plenty of mistakes that the Aussie selectors have made this year. They are just often forgiven because of the overall success of the side

I don't think that Damien Martyn has had as much international experience at opening.

He didnt, but he succeeded with flying colors when he had the chance.

 

[tooextracool]

Anyone who saw Bevan play test cricket knows that he looked hopelessly put of place (real deer in the headlights stuff) and whilst he didnt do justice to his talent, that was his fault, not the selectors.

Hard to say that about someone who played in the manner in which he did against Ambrose, Walsh and Bishop in 96/97. I do think that his weaknesses against the short ball are exaggerated by many. One would think the WI would have no problems exposing those weaknesses down under of all places. Instead, his short ball weaknesses were supposedly exposed by Gough and Headley of all bowlers

as for his axing from ODIs, it was the correct decision as the Australians were rebuilding for the next WC - it's totally irrelevant that he could've played for a couple more years as that wasnt the criteria for selection at the time

If that was the case then he should have been dropped right after the 2003 world cup and not played as many games after that. The fact that they waited until he had a bad series before they could drop him suggests that they were looking for an excuse to drop him.

 

[tooextracool]

That's because knowing every possible stat, calculated or descriptive, about a player doesn't necessarily tell you something you didn't already know about them. There's a pretty reasonable case that even batting averages, being an arithmetic mean, don't tell the full story anyway. For those of us who work in the actuarial fields, in the absence of proveably accurate measures of whatever it is you're trying to measure, getting a bunch of qualified or experienced people to make decisions about whatever it is turns out to be a pretty defensible methodology for finding solutions anyway. It obviously doesn't have the same checks and balances but generally-speaking, they get it right.

You cannot honestly tell me that someone on the selection actually made a decision on Nathan Hauritz based on actually watching him bowl? I mean commone, you'd have to be a real clown if you thought he was ever going to cut it at the international level. Yes statistics arent the be all and end all for everything, but basic understanding will tell you that if you arent performing consistently at the domestic level, you wont be doing so at the international level any time soon. Yet we see selections like that made all the time.

Equally, selections are not just about picking people from the domestic level. You also need to get rid of players in the side and that is based upon actually watching, not just on statistics. For example, how on earth someone like Geraint Jones managed to play as many tests as he did beggars belief. I mean if you couldnt tell that he was a walking wicket with his shot selection then it really brings up questions about what you are watching. Duncan Fletcher for example, was an absolutely amazing coach with great analysis on the game and was responsible for turning English cricket around but unfortunately, as a selector he couldnt tell the difference between Graham Thorpe and Geraint Jones and that was his problem.

What the selectors see (that none of us do) is a player's form in the nets, what other players are saying about them ("The deck the other day was a road but Stuey was hitting the gloves hard" or "Huss is nailing his cover drive these days"), how they're presenting themselves when put into pressure situations, etc. All of that probably turns out to be far more important in selection than anything you can mine from StatsGuru.

I agree with a lot of what you said in that paragraph. I would venture to suggest that character and ability to get along with your peers plays a big role in selection as Swann promptly found out when he made his original debut. However, I totally and completely dispute the statement in bold and it is the very reason why English selectors have made some atrocious decisions in the past. Hitting the ball well in the net has absolutely no relation to how well a player is likely to play in the middle and Im not particularly surprised that someone like Flintoff is currently hitting the balls to all corners of the nets and beyond (According to his own admission) but that doesnt give any indication as to how well he is likely to do in a match situation as there are many other skills that come into that situation. I can honestly tell you that i dont think that Ive ever managed to hit a ball as well in a match situation as I have often done in the nets and had i done so I might actually have been a somewhat capable wicket-keeper batsman. Similarly, I would not be surprised that players like Ian Bell and Kevin Pietersen are far more likely to look more attractive in the nets than the likes of Paul Collingwood or similarly Mark Waugh vs Steve Waugh. That does not mean that one player should be selected over the other as there are many qualities such as temperament and shot selection that come into match situations that are not quite replicated in the nets. How many times were Sajid Mahmood and Steve Harmison picked to play test cricket because of hitting people on the body in the nets? And how well did they fare after that. I really do hope that I never again have to hear any selector or coach admit that they picked a player based on performance in the nets as it makes them look like real novices.