-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Idiots Guide to Test Cricket *England Selectors Pls Read*
- Thread starter Goughy
- Start date
Flem274*
123/5
Say wha'?
The Idiot's England Team for the Ashes1. 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)
Bilal Shafayat - we really rated him when he was young so we'll look silly if we don't pick him eventually
James Benning (c) - you need someone from the home counties who went to public school to skipper the side
Vikram Solanki - classy technique, must be a decent player
Mark Wagh - something about his name just makes me think he's a test player
Michael Lumb - born in the southern hemisphere so he must be good
Graham Napier - played well that one time I saw him on TV
Tony Frost (wk) - that one good season he's just had surely outweighs many previous seasons of mediocrity?
Liam Dawson - Shane Warne told me he was really good
Chris Jordan - Under 24? Bowls at 85mph? 6ft plus? Get him in the side pronto!
James Harris - it's impossible to select a young talent too soon
Sajid Mahmood - his invaluable test match experience will help him mentor the younger players
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
I could see someone saying each of those.
thierry henry
International Coach
****! Beat me to it!Play muscular cricket
Find it funny Goughy can be almost Richard-esque (in a good way) in this thread (i.e. applying basic principles like, good cricketers are ones who score runs and take wickets), and most of the time in general, and yet make another thread which was very reminiscent of the "he brings a great vibe to the team" nonsense he's bemoaning here.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I'd quibble with a couple of those (the home counties and southerner bits), but it's really quite alarming how, even if most of those players are unlikely to play this summer, every single one of those errant reasonings (and all 11 are indeed errant, not just in the cases of those players but in that of any player, anywhere) could and either certainly or very probably have been used in selection in the not-so-distant past.
I'd add something in the Wagh and Benning cases:
Must have an opener batting in the middle-order and a middle-order batsman opening. Don't want to be too predictable.
Last edited:
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
I love Goughy as a poster, but I do agree with this. Particularly these two points:
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.
5. Do not select a player because 'they look good'
Seems like it can conflict with the muscular cricket theory.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
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.
I see. Well it's interesting because I certainly have, many times. Whether they were errant comments is another question, because I've always said that if Warne had had a regular run for Victoria he'd have been more likely to have returned the figures than not.
Guess it's just a shame he didn't, really, just so as to dispel all doubts on the matter.
"England management (inc. selectors and captain)" was I'm sure a more absolute interpretation of what he means.
Eh. I take it you disagree with Australia picking Phil Hughes?
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
It was at times argued that Warne's inclusion didn't help the Victorian side late in his career, because it distrurbed the balance of the side when they had a few all-rounders.
Redbacks
International Captain
I was questioning his selection prior to this series. He was good in patches at home but after a handful of FC matches you might think he needed more time. Happily proven wrong however
Matt79
Hall of Fame Member
Form is temporary, experience is useful, but class is permanent.
Not everyone with class succeeds, but when its evident that someone has that class, you have a sound reason to give them the chance to succeed. You need to think carefully about the kind of individual they are and whether you might be exposing them too early, but if they are a coachable type, with a good support group, the worst that will happen is that they'll get burnt, hopefully learn some valuable lessons and come back a few years later a much more complete player.
Not everyone with class succeeds, but when its evident that someone has that class, you have a sound reason to give them the chance to succeed. You need to think carefully about the kind of individual they are and whether you might be exposing them too early, but if they are a coachable type, with a good support group, the worst that will happen is that they'll get burnt, hopefully learn some valuable lessons and come back a few years later a much more complete player.
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
IIRC, the muscular cricket thing was a sort of theory in progress, or a collection of thoughts that crossed his mind and felt like starting a discussion on. I don't think it's a bizarre set of beliefs like Richard's first chance theory.
Anyway, i really just interpreted that post as "I find it funny that Goughy can say things that i agree with and others that i don't agree with."
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Yup. Both poor selections in my book, and nothing but nothing will change that. Full credit to both players for showing they're good enough even though they were picked before they should've been, obviously. But both had superiors who should've played ahead of them and would very probably have succeeded as well had they been given the chance.
Any fool can say a selection is a good one after the event after it's paid dividends. Whether a selection works or not isn't the same as whether it's a good or bad selection.
You can agree or disagree with the selection criteria, and some disagree that players who've only played the sole season shouldn't play Test cricket. If so, that's their prerogative. But if you look carefully, you'll see that all the evidence shows you'll lose quite a bit more than you gain by such selections. So in my book, the only POV that makes sense is mine (fairly obviously, otherwise I'd not hold it).