The worst selections and non-selections in Test history

[_Ed_]

Don't remember that guy at all.

Lucky you.

His 2000/01 record - 2 tests, 1 wicket @ 124.00

Better than I thought actually.

 

[Top_Cat]

The Aussie selectors have gotten it largely right for a good number of years so it's tough to find some really egregious selections. Sticking with Mark Taylor for as long as they did comes to mind, bowlers like Scott Muller and that Victorian bloke who knocked over NZ at the WACA by hitting the one crack in the pitch (Simon something) at least had excellent domestic stats to back their selection.

Non-selections, there are a few; Dean Jones in the 1992/03 series against the WI, Warne for the first Test in that series, Darren Lehmann for much of the early 90's, no Kasper against India in 2003/04, etc. Even then, the only one which makes me go "What the...?" is the Dean Jones one.

 

[_Ed_]

that Victorian bloke who knocked over NZ at the WACA by hitting the one crack in the pitch (Simon something)

Cook. Still haunts me.

 

[sanga1337]

The Aussie selectors have gotten it largely right for a good number of years so it's tough to find some really egregious selections. Sticking with Mark Taylor for as long as they did comes to mind, bowlers like Scott Muller and that Victorian bloke who knocked over NZ at the WACA by hitting the one crack in the pitch (Simon something) at least had excellent domestic stats to back their selection.

Non-selections, there are a few; Dean Jones in the 1992/03 series against the WI, Warne for the first Test in that series, Darren Lehmann for much of the early 90's, no Kasper against India in 2003/04, etc. Even then, the only one which makes me go "What the...?" is the Dean Jones one.

Brett Dorey?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Cook. Still haunts me.

Hmmm...

He has always been underrated, some Shield coaches believing he isn't even a player up to First Class standard. However Cook has proved them wrong in emphatic style. (Barry Anderson , Dec 1997)

 

[Top_Cat]

Brett Dorey?

I was talking Tests but, again, he had solid domestic form behind him.

Just remembered a couple of selections; Dan Cullen and Nat Hauritz. Cullen had a decent season for SA to back it up but even then, wasn't SA's best bowler that year and I don't think he averaged < 30. Hauritz on the other hand.....

 

[Spikey]

Non-selections, there are a few; Dean Jones in the 1992/03 series against the WI, Warne for the first Test in that series, Darren Lehmann for much of the early 90's, no Kasper against India in 2003/04, etc. Even then, the only one which makes me go "What the...?" is the Dean Jones one.

Can we throw Martin getting dropped after the SA test in there too?

 

[iamdavid]

I'd say the handling of Simon Katich by Australian selectors in 2003/04 was pretty ordinary.
Firstly plucking him from nowhere to play against Zimbabwe despite the fact he appeared to have gone off the boil and had just had a very ordinary (by his standards) domestic summer...their justification for picking him was that he offered another option with the ball, although it was clear to pretty much everyone he was and always had been a specialist batsman, and Martin Love had just made his first test hundred and was the logical pick. Katich then suprised everyone by grabbing 6-65.

Then a couple of months later when he had finally established himelf in the side with his great hundred against India. He was dumped for Andrew Symonds, on the basis of Symonds offering another bowling option...which was what got Katich picked again in the first place

Like TC said I dont think Australia have gone wrong too often besides that in the past decade or so...Ignoring Lehmann (and possibly even Bevan) for the test sides from 1999-2003 could be frowned upon. But I suppose they had both recieved oppurtunities at test level before and not made the most of them.

Scott Muller is often laughed about now, but at the time he really wasnt that bad a pick, had a very, very good (albeit pretty brief) domestic career behind him. Plus he just looked like he had the attributes of a test bowler with his outswing and stamina, shame he turned out to be pretty erratic. Watching Ben Hilfenhaus bowl reminds me of him so much, exactly the same style of bowler, same pace, same natural shape away from right-hander, they're even the same height and build.

Hauritz was a terrible pick for the test side in 2004, made even worse for the fact they decided to leave MacGill at home. Test matches are about picking your best team, leave the development for ODI's and domestic cricket.

If Johnson keeps bowling poorly and they keep picking him over Noffke, that'll be pretty poor aswell.

And for England, picking Ian Ward who had a pretty handy FC career behind him , to bat in the middle order against Shane Warne at the start of the 2001 Ashes series. Despite the fact he'd never done anything but open for his entire career.....t'was silly.
As was the way they ignored Phil Tufnell alot around the same period, despite the fact he was clearly Englands best spin bowler, but the batting of Giles and Croft got them picked ahead of him.

 

[Flem274*]

Tbh, I think he's more likely to be successful with the bat in Tests than Flynn. I hope I'm proven wrong though, because Flynn is likely to get many more opportunities than Elliott.

Flynn has all the qualities of a test batsman except runs to his name, and there lies the issue.

If he doesn't score enough runs over a decent trial period then we should dump him. My suspicion is though even if he turns out rubbish we'll persist with him seeing as he's already jumped ahead of guys with just as much hyped ability and more runs to their name.

I like the look of Flynn, but I'm still unconvinced.

Elliott on the other hand, has never been much of a FC batsman, though he did score 196* after being promoted up the Wellington order after his dropping from the NZ test side.

 

[Flem274*]

Stuart Broad a possibility for the England test side? Seems to be much better at ODIs, not sure if tests are going to be his forte.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Don't remember that guy at all.

Lucky you.

Very lucky indeed.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Stuart Broad a possibility for the England test side? Seems to be much better at ODIs, not sure if tests are going to be his forte.

Broad is selected as a batsman.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Elliott hasn't been much worse than Flynn in terms of performance in FC. And he's shown grit and composure at the crease in ODIs.

 

[_Ed_]

Certainly. I thought Flynn showed some of that as well in the Test series though.

 

[Flem274*]

Elliott hasn't been much worse than Flynn in terms of performance in FC. And he's shown grit and composure at the crease in ODIs.

Flynn began his FC career quite young iirc and only fired last season, averaging about 60. We've taken a big risk as he could turn out to be a one hit wonder or a world class batsman for all we know.

Elliott on the other hand, has been OK throughout his career without ever doing much. His one day stats in NZ that PEWPEW calculated smash his FC ones to pieces.

 

[chaminda_00]

Jehen Muburak, no one else comes close to being that bad.

 

[Salamuddin]

PAnkaj Dharmani would have to be the worst non-selection for India.
Politics is the only explanation as to why he never played a test for India and a whole bunch of guys who were clearly inferior did.

 

[_Ed_]

Yeah agreed, and some of the guys who did play during that time would probably be candidates for worst selection...the keeper Prasad looked pretty average to me from what I saw of him, and so did the bowler Kumaran.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Certainly. I thought Flynn showed some of that as well in the Test series though.

He did, but he also needs to prove that he can actually score runs in those gritty circumstances. I've been more impressed by Elliott than Flynn in that regard.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Jehen Muburak, no one else comes close to being that bad.

Disagree. Brenton Parchment, Suruj Ragoonath, Lincoln Roberts.