Idiots Guide to Test Cricket *England Selectors Pls Read*

[Richard]

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.

When the worst is avoidable, however, it seems to me to make little sense not to avoid it.

Tell me - if you can bring in someone more likely to succeed at the point in question, then bring the other in a bit later having learnt said lessons and without having "got burnt", how on Earth is the scenario you give (which is, I agree, perfectly plausible and happens not-irregularly) preferable?

 

[Matt79]

Sometimes the 'getting burnt' part is the only way to learn what you need.

Depends whether you're selecting like having the strongest XI in every SINGLE match is the only priority, or whether your goal is to select the strongest, most stable, group possible with the objective of sustained success. If the latter, you need to be prepared to potentially carry some members, somewhat, sometimes. It's easy to get wrong, but being a slave to the candidates FC records can almost just as easily go wrong. It is also more likely to give you a team made entirely of good FC players rather than a team of good Test players.

 

[TT Boy]

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.

Who in the case of Siddle?

His selection wasn’t that left-field. Good A tour in India, impressive final Shield game and ticked all the right boxes in regard to what you want in a pace bowler.

 

[Richard]

Douglas Bollinger beyond all question. I'd also say Nathan Bracken, though there's a case for him not to be considered. And at the time I'd have said Ashley Noffke, though subsequently I've learnt of legit reasons for his exclusion.

And clearly for Hughes, there's Jaques and Rogers.

 

[Uppercut]

Douglas Bollinger beyond all question. I'd also say Nathan Bracken, though there's a case for him not to be considered. And at the time I'd have said Ashley Noffke, though subsequently I've learnt of legit reasons for his exclusion.

And clearly for Hughes, there's Jaques and Rogers.

Jaques had played something like two matches in the past eight months.

 

[Richard]

Sometimes the 'getting burnt' part is the only way to learn what you need.

I don't think it is TBH. Think that's a rather large myth. The best way to learn is to watch people doing what you need to do and practice doing it yourself. None of this requires playing Test cricket at a time you're not good enough.

Depends whether you're selecting like having the strongest XI in every SINGLE match is the only priority, or whether your goal is to select the strongest, most stable, group possible with the objective of sustained success.

The former should always, in my book, be the priority. It's the whole ethos of Test cricket. In any case, generally, it's a safe bet that if you keep doing this, your success is more likely to be sustained than if you pick at random.

If the latter, you need to be prepared to potentially carry some members, somewhat, sometimes.

Disagree, as per the statement at the top.

It's easy to get wrong, but being a slave to the candidates FC records can almost just as easily go wrong. It is also more likely to give you a team made entirely of good FC players rather than a team of good Test players.

You say that like Test and First-Class cricket are different games. They're exactly the same, played under precisely the same rules. The only difference is the level of play and the level of public scrutiny. Sometimes this can result in good First-Class players failing to become good Test players, but under ANY circumstances a proven First-Class player is more likely to be successful in a Test starting tomorrow than an unproven or proven-crap one.

 

[Richard]

Jaques had played something like two matches in the past eight months.

Ind33d. His condition wasn't ideal.

However, I presume if he wasn't fit to play he'd not have played said 2 games. I heard no suggestion of any after-effects in said 2 games.

 

[Uppercut]

Ind33d. His condition wasn't ideal.

However, I presume if he wasn't fit to play he'd not have played said 2 games. I heard no suggestion of any after-effects in said 2 games.

I mean, picking Hughes over him was perfectly reasonable given the lack of cricket. And if he'd had plenty of games behind him, I'm certain they'd have went for Jaques.

Chris Rogers, meh. Less to gain by picking him. It's obvious Hughes is good enough. Personally I commend the selectors for seeing through his unorthodoxy and looking at his ability to score runs. England's selectors would NEVER have done that.

 

[Kweek]

Chris Rogers, meh. Less to gain by picking him. It's obvious Hughes is good enough. Personally I commend the selectors for seeing through his unorthodoxy and looking at his ability to score runs. England's selectors would NEVER have done that.

Remember Markus Trescothick ?

 

[Uppercut]

Remember Markus Trescothick ?

Different selectors. Different scenario too.

 

[Richard]

I mean, picking Hughes over him was perfectly reasonable given the lack of cricket. And if he'd had plenty of games behind him, I'm certain they'd have went for Jaques.

I'm not sure they would've TBH. As I say, I don't think lack of recent cricket is a fair reason, if someone is an established Test player. Only apparent lack of getting-over-injury would be.

Chris Rogers, meh. Less to gain by picking him. It's obvious Hughes is good enough.

It seems obvious now, and it was obvious he was extremely good and would be far more likely to be Test-class than not before.

Rogers has been treated utterly shabbily by Australia's selectors.

 

[GIMH]

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).

I agree with you Richard that the criteria for a good selection is the reasons why it was made rather than what happens, I just don't necessarily agree with your idea as to what reasons are valid and which aren't. I think occasionally selectors might know something we don't, and what may therefore seem a left-field selection is actually one made with solid reasoning, and the results come about because it was a well-informed selection rather than a lucky one.

At the end of the day, there is no doubt that selection is often poor, but there is a reason why it is generally a full-time position and I would expect selectors to know and see things we don't.

 

[Prince EWS]

Ind33d. His condition wasn't ideal.

However, I presume if he wasn't fit to play he'd not have played said 2 games. I heard no suggestion of any after-effects in said 2 games.

Well, he's injured again now...

 

[Richard]

Indeed? Shame. When did that happen?

 

[Richard]

I agree with you Richard that the criteria for a good selection is the reasons why it was made rather than what happens, I just don't necessarily agree with your idea as to what reasons are valid and which aren't. I think occasionally selectors might know something we don't, and what may therefore seem a left-field selection is actually one made with solid reasoning, and the results come about because it was a well-informed selection rather than a lucky one.

At the end of the day, there is no doubt that selection is often poor, but there is a reason why it is generally a full-time position and I would expect selectors to know and see things we don't.

I don't disagree with this at all. However, I generally think selectors should comment on issues they know about which haven't (yet) reached public eye.

It's not as if they gain anything by keeping things hushed-up about what skills it was a player was demonstrating that was out of the public eye.

 

[Furball]

Douglas Bollinger beyond all question. I'd also say Nathan Bracken, though there's a case for him not to be considered. And at the time I'd have said Ashley Noffke, though subsequently I've learnt of legit reasons for his exclusion.

And clearly for Hughes, there's Jaques and Rogers.

Picking Jacques over Hughes would have been a ludicrous selection.

 

[Richard]

Don't think it would TBH. You could argue that Jaques shouldn't have been playing, but his playing would certainly not have been ludicrous.

 

[Prince EWS]

Indeed?

"Indeed" followed by a question mark is almost as bad as "obv" followed by a question mark.

 

[Richard]

OK then.

Really?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

At the end of the day, there is no doubt that selection is often poor, but there is a reason why it is generally a full-time position and I would expect selectors to know and see things we don't.

At some point one of them must have seen Amjad Khan bowl and decided he's a Test bowler. Anyone armed with that level of knowledge is usually locked up for their own safety.