Idiots Guide to Test Cricket *England Selectors Pls Read*

[Goughy]

1. Win toss and bat.
There are rare occasions when it is right to bowl but it requires knowledge and judgment and if you are relying on an idiots guide then don't risk it.

2. Always enforce the follow on

3. Never select a specialist seam bowler with a career FC average (outside Tests) of over 30.
Just don't. If that is the best available then you have bigger issues.

4. Bat down to 7. Will regret it far too often if you don't

5. Do not select a player because 'they look good'

6. An interesting life story does not make a player a better cricketer.
It doesn't matter if they are an Aussie roof-tiler, a rare creature from the frozen North, the son of a famous cricketer, the protege of an England captain's father etc. The story must be separated from the cricketer.

7. Apply consistency of selection.
Unless a player is a last min emergency selection due to injury then they deserve at least a second game. One bad game in a series should not change 'expert' opinion.

Pls add and keep them simple (and it is a little tongue-in-cheek )

 

[Langeveldt]

8. If all else fails, SA always has good cricketers.. After all, you did make the place civilized, so why not reap the rewards?

 

[Richard]

Disagree with 1 and 2 TBH but have discussed ad nauseum elsewhere so won't do so again.

Another I'm surprised you missed:
When picking a bowler, look at how good he is, not whether he bowls seam or spin. And when he's a seamer, again, concentrate on how good he is, not what pace he bowls at \ what height he bowls from.

And another:
When selecting your wicketkeeper, first try to watch him extensively beforehand. And having done that, if you find he's not an adaquete gloveman, don't give him the gloves in Tests.

 

[Richard]

And another:
Form is important to bear in mind. Do not introduce a player, however good, when he is obviously out-of-form. But certainly do not introduce a player who has been moderate to poor for a lengthy period just because he is obviously in good form. Equally, do not drop a player whose high calibre is established just because he is out-of-form. Only drop him if the calibre of his play has declined and you believe this is not a soon-to-be-reversed trend.

 

[Richard]

And again:
Nightwatchmen: flexibility is paramount. Do not have a rigid approach. If a batsman wants a nightwatchman, accede to his requests. If he does not, do not force one upon him. And if you are in the second-innings and require quick runs, do not consider a nightwatchman under any circumstances.

 

[Richard]

Can't believe I've missed this until now:
ODI cricket. When selecting your Test team, do NOT, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, take account of whether a player has been successful or unsuccessful in ODIs. Try to apply this thinking in reverse too - if, that is, you are in the slightest bothered about your ODI team at all. Treat the two game-forms separately. Yes, if you pick for your Test team giving ODIs consideration you may sometimes fluke the odd success. And yes, some players are good at both formats - this will reveal itself in due course if so. However, you will lose far more than you gain by considering the two formats interchangeable.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Produce better cricketers

 

[Lostman]

20/20 is not cricket. Stats in 20/20 mean nothing and they dont translate to ODI, and sure as hell not tests.

 

[four_or_six]

Do not pick injured bowlers!!!

 

[Richard]

3. Never select a specialist seam bowler with a career FC average (outside Tests) of over 30.
Just don't. If that is the best available then you have bigger issues.

Think we should preface this with "with extremely rare exceptions".

Stuart Clark wasn't a bad selection, nor an unsuccessful one.

 

[Furball]

Think we should preface this with "with extremely rare exceptions".

Stuart Clark wasn't a bad selection, nor an unsuccessful one.

Warne's career FC average for Victoria was never that special either was it?

It's a generally good guide to selcting bowlers, but a bit of context is sometimes needed. It's quite possible for good players to sometimes have less than exceptional career stats.

 

[Richard]

Warne was more an exception to another rule I'd almost always go by:
If players have been in the First-Class game for a season or so, don't pick them. However good they've looked, and however good their performances, in that time.

On Warne specificaly, no, his First-Class record for Victoria wasn't ever particularly good, no. However, I can't quite shake the feeling that if he'd been made to wait in Victoria's team, he might at some point have started performing well.

As the reason for Warne's poor First-Class record for Victoria at the time of his initial Test selection was different to the reason for his poor First-Class record for Victoria for most of the rest of his career. Latterly, it was because he rarely played and couldn't often be bothered when he did. Originally, it was just because he wasn't very good. He played Test cricket over a year earlier than he was ready to do so.

 

[Uppercut]

Warne was more an exception to another rule I'd almost always go by:
If players have been in the First-Class game for a season or so, don't pick them. However good they've looked, and however good their performances, in that time.

On Warne specificaly, no, his First-Class record for Victoria wasn't ever particularly good, no. However, I can't quite shake the feeling that if he'd been made to wait in Victoria's team, he might at some point have started performing well.

As the reason for Warne's poor First-Class record for Victoria at the time of his initial Test selection was different to the reason for his poor First-Class record for Victoria for most of the rest of his career. Latterly, it was because he rarely played and couldn't often be bothered when he did. Originally, it was just because he wasn't very good. He played Test cricket over a year earlier than he was ready to do so.

Ed Smith, having played against him four times when he was chasing a result on the last day of CC matches, says that's the most untrue myth he's ever heard.

 

[Richard]

County Championship =| Sheffield Shield.

Almost all Victorians have spoken of Warne's - and Ian Harvey's - laissez-faire attitude to many state games.

However, Hampshire never had any complaints. I presume because Warne regarded Victoria as a chore that he had to do and Hampshire as an aside which he had chosen to take on.

However, don't want to sidetrack this thread TBH, so I'm sure we could discuss this somewhere else if you wish.

 

[Uppercut]

No, you're probably right.

Don't pick Runako M****n. When a player's name is on the filter of a cricket forum it's a hint that he isn't very good.

 

[oldmancraigy]

Think we should preface this with "with extremely rare exceptions".

Stuart Clark wasn't a bad selection, nor an unsuccessful one.

Doeg Bollinger was also over 30 for his first class average when selected - however his last 3 seasons had been about an average of 18.

It is possible for someone to start their career off ultra poorly, and then cobble it together!

Bollinger may or may not make it on the test scene though - so perhaps he's a bad example!! But at least we can see from him, that a player's overall average doesn't neccessarily reflect what's been happening the last few seasons.

 

[Richard]

That's precisely the sort of situation I meant.

Stuart Clark, a much better practical example, averaged 124.66 in 1997/98 and 1998/99. And since 2000/01 (including Tests) he's averaged 25.49.

 

[Top_Cat]

County Championship =| Sheffield Shield.

Almost all Victorians have spoken of Warne's - and Ian Harvey's - laissez-faire attitude to many state games.

However, Hampshire never had any complaints. I presume because Warne regarded Victoria as a chore that he had to do and Hampshire as an aside which he had chosen to take on.

However, don't want to sidetrack this thread TBH, so I'm sure we could discuss this somewhere else if you wish.

This is the first I've heard of Warne not putting in for Victoria. All press and comments from Warne suggest he did everything he could to bowl well for Vic but just never got a regular run at it here because of international committments.

 

[Matt79]

Yeh, never heard anyone question Warne's commitment in Victorian games.

The first couple of points on Goughy's guide are the captain, not the selectors' call.

I'd quibble with the "make sure you bat down to seven" idea - pursuing that has been if anything too much of a priority by English selectors. I'd go with:
"Your batsmen are the ones who should be relied upon to select runs. When selecting a wicketkeeper, the priority is to make sure they can keep. When selecting a bowler, the only criteria should be that they are good enough bowlers. If it happens that either can also bat, that's strictly a bonus."

If you have four test standard bowlers, and a keeper who takes most chances, you've got enough of the job done as selectors that your six batsmen should be enough. If your six specialist batsmen aren't good enough, there are bigger issues at play - possibly compounded by a determination to squeeze in a fifth bowler by making an allrounder bat at 6 when they're really not up to the job of replacing one of your specialist batsmen.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Don't take the job in the first place if you're an idiot.