Idiots Guide to Test Cricket *England Selectors Pls Read*

[Goughy]

Selecting players that have an ordinary record but have been thoroughly evaluated is acceptable in occasional circumstances.

My slant on things has a greater English bias and I know for a fact that this seldom has happened in the past. A good game on TV, a locker-room story, good publicity, selector attending a game where a player plays well combined with desperation and poor knowledge have played a massive role in selection.

Matt is correct, there are people that have greater talent spotting abilities than others. However, that and being a national selector dont always go hand-in-hand.

Selecting on eye-ball judgements is a bad way to run a business. Just as it is a bad way to select cricket teams.

In the short-run the decisions may go well but it is a strategy for failure in the long-run.

If a selector claims to have great 'talent spotting' ability and make decisions based on their personal judgment then their reputation should be on the line.

 

[Matt79]

Oh, look, no doubt, some people are disasterous at making judgements on players. That makes them bad selectors, rather than the approach of basing a decision upon what you've seen of a player/feel he could turn into, a necessarily bad approach.

FC form is not the sure-fire indicator of Test success/potential that some here are presenting it as either. Both approaches have their draw back, and the best approach is probably (to my mind) basing it on FC form, with a healthy dose of individual judgement, but there is certainly room for that judgement to be exercised even if the FC stats don't always back it up.

 

[Richard]

What annoys me in this conversation is the writing off of anything other than selections based on years of FC consistency as a 'gut feel', 'hunch' or a 'random selection'.

That's just what it is though. It doesn't have to be "years" - as in, 4 or 5 - but just more than 1. 1 year or less, though - it's guess, simple as.

Once a player has not demonstrated his skill at the next level below Test cricket, it's always a guess, to whatever extent, as to how good he is at that level, never mind Test level.

Believe it or not, some people have a talent for looking at a player and being able to make a judgement re their technique, attitude and prospects for success. Calling these judgement hunches or gambles is inaccurate and misleading.

Precious few people have this talent. And there's a reason for this - it's an exceptionally difficult thing to do. Same reason precious few people have the talent to bowl at 90mph and hit decent areas - that's exceptionally difficult as well.

All sorts of players who appear to have huge promise in a certain area end-up coming-up short because of shortcomings in another area. And as I've said many times, all sorts of international selectors patently obviously have little clue what they're doing. As I've also said, there are a great deal of CW posters who'd do a better job.

In any case, if you've got this ability you've absolutely no place pitching players with promise into international cricket just because you believe that some day they'll be good. You want to get them playing Test cricket once they are good, not before such a time. I've no objection at all to people making judgement calls on players' promise and ensuring effort is made to develop this self-interpreted judgement of promise. But don't go throwing players into the Test team now because of what you judge they will some day be. Wait until they actually are what you think they're going to be first.

 

[Richard]

Fair point - I did say that I concurred with you!!

I mostly agree with your criteria - excpet on the case of the "whiz kid" - if they're good enough they're old enough. Just gotta make sure they're good enough (and I think one can do that over the course of 12-18 months)

Not all whizz kids can be assured to be good enough, though. Look at Michael Clarke for example - always had all the promise in The World, but he was 25 before he became a Test-standard batsman. They waited longer than some know-nothings would, but in the end they couldn't quite wait long enough, and as a result Clarke in 2004/05 and 2005 (and 1 game in 2005/06) had a substandard phase to start his career off.

Some whizz-kids don't even ever deliver on their promise - look at Mark Ramprakash.

BTW your signature quote and caption is a blatant misrepresentation of something I've said and I'd ask you to remove it, otherwise I'll have to report it through official channels.

 

[Richard]

FC form is not the sure-fire indicator of Test success/potential that some here are presenting it as either. Both approaches have their draw back, and the best approach is probably (to my mind) basing it on FC form, with a healthy dose of individual judgement, but there is certainly room for that judgement to be exercised even if the FC stats don't always back it up.

Of course, good performances at domestic level are no guarantee of an international prospect. You always have to look carefully at your succcessful First-Class players before deciding which one to go for, but the point is, don't go for an unsuccessful one over a successful one.

There is simply no way around the fact that a player who has proven himself at the domestic level is more likely to be successful at the international level than one who hasn't. Much more likely.

 

[Flem274*]

I do mostly agree with you Rich, though it would be interesting to hear your opinion on Daniel Flynn and James Franklin, picked at 22 and 20 respectively. Flynn had one good season and Jimmy had had none (to my recollection).

I'm sure there'd be others around the world who are exceptions.

 

[Richard]

No-one is claiming that someone picked on a guess cannot possibly be successful. Sometimes you'll guess good. The point is merely that you'll produce far more failures than successes that way, so thus it's a bad method of selecting. And it's made even worse by the fact that precious few people have the player-judgement skill to be able to get a player in at "just the right time".

I have to say I doubt Daniel Flynn's selection was a good one, I think those responsible just ran-out of options (there's hardly a wealth of outstanding batsmen bashing the door down, are there?) and took a punt which has - so it seems, at least - happened to work. As for Franklin, I hardly see that his selection at the time it was first made can be described as a successful one. He barely played over the first 3 years that his Test career spanned!

 

[analyst]

Not all whizz kids can be assured to be good enough, though. Look at Michael Clarke for example - always had all the promise in The World, but he was 25 before he became a Test-standard batsman. They waited longer than some know-nothings would, but in the end they couldn't quite wait long enough, and as a result Clarke in 2004/05 and 2005 (and 1 game in 2005/06) had a substandard phase to start his career off.

Some whizz-kids don't even ever deliver on their promise - look at Mark Ramprakash.BTW your signature quote and caption is a blatant misrepresentation of something I've said and I'd ask you to remove it, otherwise I'll have to report it through official channels.

Using that era of cricketers does not help anyone, I can also give you Kambli and Damian martyn who success came too soon. It definitely does not mean they should be held back if there are no players within the system, it should not be a definitive no. It has to be carefully assessed, is there really a place for a young cricketer, is the player going out of the team or squad really not worth his place anymore and could he do with sometime out. Then you bring this young kid in and if it works, good on the selectors, if it doesn't it is hardly worth whining about. Youth is something to get excited about, not bringing the likes of Nixon and Udal up for call ups at the age of 35 + because they are ''seasoned cricketers''.

 

[zaremba]

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."

All very well in theory but in the cold light of day, when you're 100-4 and the next man in is Chris Read with Malcolm, Mullally, Tufnell and Giddins to come, you might wish you'd taken a different route. Lower order run-making potential should not be underestimated.

 

[Richard]

I kinda agree with He Of The Birth In '79 and Mr. z here. There is no way under any circumstance that the bottom-four can be made-up of bowlers with no run-making potential (even if one or even two of them can hang-around - eg Sidebottom and Hoggard). However, you'd be plain crazy to turn-down a patently superior bowler for a patently inferior one because of his batting.

England did this with Sidebottom - Plunkett and Mahmood, marginally better batsmen and vastly, grotesquely inferior bowlers, were preferred for 2 whole years. Giles playing the opening couple of Tests of 2006/07 ahead of MSP was a similar error (and no greater, no matter how the MSP-lovers screamed blue-murder at it).

Fortunately, bowlers with an amount of batting skill are not things of great rarity. Someone like Hoggard may never have been much of a run-maker, but when he started-out in Test cricket, never mind domestic stuff, he was scarcely better than Devon Malcolm or Ed Giddins and no better than Alan Mullally or Angus Fraser (perhaps worse). Often, a bit of work with a youngish bowler reveals batting ability sometimes even he never knew he had.

If your four best bowlers are clearly the best four around and have no batting skill, well, you'll just have to lump it and get what you can from them. But such a case is very rare indeed. And under any circumstances, you must make clear to a bowler that to take a laissez-faire attitude to batting is unacceptable.

 

[Richard]

Using that era of cricketers does not help anyone, I can also give you Kambli and Damian martyn who success came too soon. It definitely does not mean they should be held back if there are no players within the system, it should not be a definitive no. It has to be carefully assessed, is there really a place for a young cricketer, is the player going out of the team or squad really not worth his place anymore and could he do with sometime out. Then you bring this young kid in and if it works, good on the selectors, if it doesn't it is hardly worth whining about. Youth is something to get excited about, not bringing the likes of Nixon and Udal up for call ups at the age of 35 + because they are ''seasoned cricketers''.

I'm not entirely sure I understand this post at all. "That era" of cricketers? "No players within the system"? "If it works, good on the selectors, if it doesn't it is hardly worth whining about"?

It's pretty simple really. If a player looks the goods and has produced the goods, you pick him if there's a gap there. If he doesn't and hasn't, you try to avoid picking him and stick with what you've got unless there's a patent need for change.

Only when a player is properly "old" (talking 32+ here) should age ever be considered as a debar for him debuting.

And under no circumstances is a successful selection automatically a good one!!!

 

[GIMH]

I kinda agree with He Of The Birth In '79 and Mr. z here. There is no way under any circumstance that the bottom-four can be made-up of bowlers with no run-making potential (even if one or even two of them can hang-around - eg Sidebottom and Hoggard). However, you'd be plain crazy to turn-down a patently superior bowler for a patently inferior one because of his batting.

England did this with Sidebottom - Plunkett and Mahmood, marginally better batsmen and vastly, grotesquely inferior bowlers, were preferred for 2 whole years. Giles playing the opening couple of Tests of 2006/07 ahead of MSP was a similar error (and no greater, no matter how the MSP-lovers screamed blue-murder at it).

Fortunately, bowlers with an amount of batting skill are not things of great rarity. Someone like Hoggard may never have been much of a run-maker, but when he started-out in Test cricket, never mind domestic stuff, he was scarcely better than Devon Malcolm or Ed Giddins and no better than Alan Mullally or Angus Fraser (perhaps worse). Often, a bit of work with a youngish bowler reveals batting ability sometimes even he never knew he had.

If your four best bowlers are clearly the best four around and have no batting skill, well, you'll just have to lump it and get what you can from them. But such a case is very rare indeed. And under any circumstances, you must make clear to a bowler that to take a laissez-faire attitude to batting is unacceptable.

I don't think Plunkett & Mahmood were preferred on the basis of batting thoguh - which arguably makes their repeated selections even worse

 

[Flem274*]

No-one is claiming that someone picked on a guess cannot possibly be successful. Sometimes you'll guess good. The point is merely that you'll produce far more failures than successes that way, so thus it's a bad method of selecting. And it's made even worse by the fact that precious few people have the player-judgement skill to be able to get a player in at "just the right time".

I have to say I doubt Daniel Flynn's selection was a good one, I think those responsible just ran-out of options (there's hardly a wealth of outstanding batsmen bashing the door down, are there?) and took a punt which has - so it seems, at least - happened to work. As for Franklin, I hardly see that his selection at the time it was first made can be described as a successful one. He barely played over the first 3 years that his Test career spanned!

WRT Flynn-pretty sure Fulton, Hay and Broom were pretty miffed.

As for Sidey I'm surprised he wasn't picked earlier than his recall. He's a pretty damn good swing bowler.

 

[DaRick]

DaRick's tips:

1) When picking seamers, make sure they can bowl, at the very least, something resembling a half-decent line and length. When they cannot, then pace and movement become more or less irrelevant most of the time (look at Liam Plunknett, for instance).

2) Try not to go by the old adage 'form is temporary, class is permanent' too much - otherwise you'll end up with Hooper-heirs like Ian Bell.

3) Try not to have captains changing every few series, for it may throw out team stability, given that the players have to meld different captaincy styles.

4) When you drop someone, make sure it is on the basis of a prolonged slump, not two or so bad games. The same applies when selecting players.

5) Re-selecting players who have underachieved for years in the vain hope that they'll rediscover their form is generally a wasted exercise (i.e - Mushtaq Ahmed, Graeme Hick, Steve Harmison, etc.)

Also, playing a full-time spinner could be a optional exercise, not a compulsory one. That's why I'm not clamouring for Hauritz's inclusion in the 1st Ashes Test XI for Australia.

 

[DaRick]

WRT Flynn-pretty sure Fulton, Hay and Broom were pretty miffed.

Well, in fairness, Peter Fulton could barely move his feet or get the ball off the square - in Adelaide, no less. It's pretty clear he wasn't in great form.

 

[Richard]

I don't think Plunkett & Mahmood were preferred on the basis of batting thoguh - which arguably makes their repeated selections even worse

Plunkett I cannot conceive his batting did not make some impact. His bowling is classical "English swing bowler" stereotype stuff that Sidebottom was ignored precisely because he was.

Mahmood it was more likely to have been his "X-factor"ness that saw him preferred, but I think, had he been an Alan Mullally esque batsman, he might not have gotten quite the favour he did.

 

[Richard]

As for Sidey I'm surprised he wasn't picked earlier than his recall. He's a pretty damn good swing bowler.

As I say (and as David Lloyd said once), I reckon it's fairly safe to say Duncan Fletcher looked at him and decided he wasn't quick enough. That was the frustrating thing about him, the way he had these infatuations from time to time (it was only from time to time, not always - he picked Caddick, Cork, Hoggard and even Kirtley and in some of those cases got success out of them that no-one else had managed to), and sometimes he'd just completely cut someone out.

In the case of the like of Chris Adams, that was fair enough. In Sidebottom's, it emphatically was not.

 

[thierry henry]

Plunkett I cannot conceive his batting did not make some impact. His bowling is classical "English swing bowler" stereotype stuff that Sidebottom was ignored precisely because he was.

Mahmood it was more likely to have been his "X-factor"ness that saw him preferred, but I think, had he been an Alan Mullally esque batsman, he might not have gotten quite the favour he did.

I thought that other old chestnut "the extra yard of pace" counted in both cases. Obviously in the case of Mahmood it did, but I also recall Plunket bowling mid-140s (cusp of 90mph) during the 2006/07 CB series. AFAIK he isn't really regarded as an out and out pace bowler, but during that particular series I think he was surprising people with the speeds he was registering.

I think Plunkett was also arguably an X-Factor type bowler in that, at times, he bowled near enough 90mph and was swinging the ball around corners- never mind that he was struggling to land it on the square.

 

[thierry henry]

As I say (and as David Lloyd said once), I reckon it's fairly safe to say Duncan Fletcher looked at him and decided he wasn't quick enough. That was the frustrating thing about him, the way he had these infatuations from time to time (it was only from time to time, not always - he picked Caddick, Cork, Hoggard and even Kirtley and in some of those cases got success out of them that no-one else had managed to), and sometimes he'd just completely cut someone out.

In the case of the like of Chris Adams, that was fair enough. In Sidebottom's, it emphatically was not.

Is Sidebottom appreciably faster than he was earlier in his career?

During his second coming he was actually decidedly sharp at times (mid and even high 80s), and of course when a guy gets exaggerated swing at sharp pace he can give the illusion of being even quicker.

Just as a general comment, despite Plunkett being generally regarded as crap, Anderson somewhere near crap, and Sidebottom somewhat polarising, all three of these guys have made me very nervous in recent years when playing the Black Caps. This is basically because they all have the ability to get big swing at good pace. It really doesn't surprise me that much that there were people who thought they were worth persisting with.

 

[Richard]

I thought that other old chestnut "the extra yard of pace" counted in both cases. Obviously in the case of Mahmood it did, but I also recall Plunket bowling mid-140s (cusp of 90mph) during the 2006/07 CB series. AFAIK he isn't really regarded as an out and out pace bowler, but during that particular series I think he was surprising people with the speeds he was registering.

I think Plunkett was also arguably an X-Factor type bowler in that, at times, he bowled near enough 90mph and was swinging the ball around corners- never mind that he was struggling to land it on the square.

Plunkett was only swinging it so much in the second final - the one where there was an electrical storm at 8:30-9:30 or so in the evening. IE, absolutely everything a swing bowler could possibly dream of. Other than that he didn't generally get it to do very much and only got wickets through poor batting.

You're right that he was generally up close to 90mph in that series but it's certainly the only time he's ever done that in his career. Next summer he was back where he had been previously - 83-84mph-ish. And of course the next summer contained THAT Old Trafford Test where he and Harmison took the village-green to Test cricket.