Selection Policy (IMO)

[Perm]

And so ends the Southee debate

And how exactly do you figure that?

Southee has played one series against a poor ODI side, and despite taking lots of wickets has an ecomony rate of 5.39 an over. He got belted in the first two games, 1/68 (10) and 2/35 (5) before ripping the middle out of England in the 3rd. He took wickets in the last two games, but again was slightly expensive, especially in the 5th.

Don't get me wrong, I've been very impressed with his bowling in this tour. The young guy has been accurate, swung the ball and bowled at a good pace. I still don't think his selection was warranted though, even if his performances somewhat justify it so far. I don't think it would be fair to drop him now, but the debate hasn't been ended by any means.

 

[Perm]

I've said it before - a decision turning-out to be a successful one doesn't mean it was a good decision. To be a good decision, the reasoning behind it must be sound. And this doesn't change whether the decision turns-out successful or unsuccessful. Of course, a bad decision that is unsuccessful is more ideal than one that turns-out successful.

I agree, to an extent, but I disagree with your last sentence.

When selectorial decisions are made I feel there has to be sound reasoning behind it, generally in the form of performances at domestic level as an indicator of a players ability. Obviously there have been Test and ODI players who haven't had great domestic records when picked but have succeeded at international level, and then proceeded to do the same domestically. Michael Vaughan is one such example, and probably the best I can think of.

However, would you still say it was a bad decision to pick a player with little domestic form behind them if the player in question excels at Test/ODI level for their entire career? Because personally I wouldn't. Even though the reasoning behind the selection was poor, the result was a very good one and shows that domestic performances aren't always an indicator of how capable a particular batsman or bowler is.

 

[Perm]

In other news: tipping the winner doesn't mean you've predicted correctly if Dicko disagrees with your selection. You were wrong, but lucky.

In the same news: tipping correctly and tipping wisely are not the same thing.

That's actually exactly what he told me when I won money on Ireland beating Pakistan in the World Cup. Seriously.

Is it? I don't recall saying "you wrongly predicted something which you correctly predicted".

What he means is that you said it wasn't a good prediction because nine times out of ten Pakistan would have won. Or something like that.

I'm sure you remember this but meh, it's late

The end justifies the mean - does it apply in this case?

 

[social]

Seems as though a few people dont like being proven wrong

Unfortunately, as much as it would make life easier, selection does not always come down to a checklist

Sometimes, people make decisions based on intuition and experience

With Southee, it was pretty easy - he is the world's best player for his age, he has a perfectly fine fc record AND he has all the qualities that make for a good bowler (pace, swing, strong and readily repeatable action)

Rather than making excuses as to why you got it wrong, perhaps you should be more concerned with his treatment in the future as there's no way that he'll be sent back to kindergarten anytime soon

 

[Perm]

You haven't exactly countered the arguments that people have put forward social, instead you seem content to make statements about how you were right, they were wrong etc. Not to mention being very patronising while doing it too. So much for reasoned and intelligent debate.

 

[social]

You haven't exactly countered the arguments that people have put forward social, instead you seem content to make statements about how you were right, they were wrong etc. Not to mention being very patronising while doing it too. So much for reasoned and intelligent debate.

I didnt get it right, the NZ selectors did

I'd never even seen him play until he was playing for his country

They obviously saw something in him that gave them confidence that he could make the step up, I simply agreed with their assessment from what I've seen of him in international cricket

 

[Flem274*]

Iirc Southee has a pretty good FC record in his short career. Its not quite as good as his counterparts in the NZ side but its worthy of squad selection if it is deemed he is mature enough for international cricket.

If it had been someone like Brent Arnel who has a similar record and also few domestic games I feel there would have been less complaints. I was against Southee's selection based on age I admit, as very few players have the cricketing maturity he does at 19, however he's going fine.

My only issue is whether he is fully grown or not. Fast bowling is tough on the body and if he's still growing, international cricket could do more harm than good to his body.

Southee's limited domestic record definitely stacks up, he wasn't picked merely because there was no one else (we actualy have a few good bowlers running around). Though if he had been a batsman that would probably have been the case.

 

[Craig]

So in terms of punt selections where do people stand on Daniel Vettori considering he was picked after two FC games? I think it is fair to say it did contribute to his back fractures since he was still growing as he got pickedand having to do a fair bit of bowling simply not a wise thing.

 

[Richard]

Seems as though a few people dont like being proven wrong

Who does? Most people dislike even more being told they're wrong when they aren't, however.

 

[Richard]

However, would you still say it was a bad decision to pick a player with little domestic form behind them if the player in question excels at Test/ODI level for their entire career? Because personally I wouldn't. Even though the reasoning behind the selection was poor, the result was a very good one and shows that domestic performances aren't always an indicator of how capable a particular batsman or bowler is.

Eh? Not entirely sure how these two correlate. I've never said players who don't merit Test selection but end-up performing well there (David Gower is always the first example that comes to mind - Shane Warne would be another but I'm always reluctant to use him as I find it near enough inconceivable that he'd not have started to tear-up at domestic level if he'd been left there until he did, he was just too good not to) shouldn't continue to be picked.

What I said is, when selectors erroneously (IMO) promote players, I prefer to see it fail than pay-off. If it does pay-off, I'll applaud the player and say well played to him on a fine Test career. But this happens exceptionally rarely.

 

[Richard]

The end justifies the mean - does it apply in this case?

I don't think it neccessarily does. You can make a decision that turns-out to be a profitable one without it being a good decision. Similarly, you can make the right decision and despite it having everything going for it it can fail to pay-off.

I like to judge a decision on how well-reasoned it was. Not what ends-up happening because of it.

One Heath Davis I recall fairly bashing John Bracewell for sticking with Hamish Marshall to try and make it look as though he'd made a good decision when in reality it was a bad one (and he was then making another bad one by continuing to pick him).

 

[Richard]

What he means is that you said it wasn't a good prediction because nine times out of ten Pakistan would have won. Or something like that.

I'm sure you remember this but meh, it's late

I remember it 100% - what I said was not "it was not a correct prediction" but "it was not a good prediction".

Basically, old DB is twisting words, trying to make what I said sound worse than it actually was.

 

[Perm]

Eh? Not entirely sure how these two correlate. I've never said players who don't merit Test selection but end-up performing well there (David Gower is always the first example that comes to mind - Shane Warne would be another but I'm always reluctant to use him as I find it near enough inconceivable that he'd not have started to tear-up at domestic level if he'd been left there until he did, he was just too good not to) shouldn't continue to be picked.

What I said is, when selectors erroneously (IMO) promote players, I prefer to see it fail than pay-off. If it does pay-off, I'll applaud the player and say well played to him on a fine Test career. But this happens exceptionally rarely.

Perhaps I misunderstood your post. The way I read it you were seeming to say it was a bad thing if a player is selected wrongly (IYO) and performs well. Either that or I'm incredibly tired.

 

[Richard]

I was saying I don't especially like it (initially, at least - I'm ecstatic that it happened in Gower's case as even on highlights reels his batting is one of the biggest joys to watch I've ever seen and had domestic performances not been overlooked we might never have had that). Different to it being a bad thing as such.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The selection of Southee has perfectly good reasoning - people who understand cricket recognised he has talent and decided he was worth taking a chance on.

 

[Richard]

Not if you think that isn't good reasoning, it didn't.

If you do think that's good reasoning, obviously, it did.

 

[weldone]

A place in the National Test or ODI team shouldn't be given or experimented with, it should be earned...Although I'm not too sure whether this rule should apply to teams like Bangladesh...

 

[Lillian Thomson]

A place in the National Test or ODI team shouldn't be given or experimented with, it should be earned...Although I'm not too sure whether this rule should apply to teams like Bangladesh...

Luckily people who matter don't need a pocket calculator to spot class players.

 

[Jamee999]

That's actually exactly what he told me when I won money on Ireland beating Pakistan in the World Cup. Seriously.

Surely odds completely change that...

You don't need to win 50%+ to be profitable....

 

[Goughy]

Luckily people who matter don't need a pocket calculator to spot class players.

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.