Pakistan take too much punt. They try every one and it fails much more than it pays off. Their team is always inconsistent because there are players always who are in there for a punt. If they took less punts, I would be fine with it as it does pay off as with Misbah Ul Haq in recent times.
but conversely playing the odds will win in the long run with initial bumps due to luck. If a selector has a good method, he wins in the long term.
but your criteria generally requires instant performance which doesn't deserve to be considered the right way by any meansRichard said:
Nah don't agree this has been Pakistan's worst decade since 1960's and the lack of punts in this decade has been one of the reason for lack of success. Tanvir, rao, Arafat, Faisal Iqbal, Imran Farhat, Bazid Khan etc were all picked based on their good domestic performances and they have all turned out to be relative failures.Currently the best fast bowler in the side Umer Gul was a punt. Yes a solid domestic performer is always a safe bet and there has been cases of success like Youni Khan, Shoaib Akhtar and Mohd Asif but the amount of success we have had with punts its always worthwhile that we take some risks.
I am not talking about recent times. I am talking about Pakistan cricket generally. In recent times, you have a much better idea as you follow Pakistan cricket far more closely than I do.
And thats what I say lack of punts has led to regress in results, till 90's despite the inconsistency it was mainly a top 3 side this decade the strategy changed and there was more emphasis on picking players who have a solid domestic record and this has lead to a declining performances.
That's a bit of a misrepresentation though. Clark had a First-Class average of 30 when first picked because he took 6-748 (that's an average of 124.66) in his first couple of seasons, then consequently didn't play at all in 1999/2000.
It was 8 years on from Stephen Waugh's Test debut that he finally cracked Test cricket. He debuted in 1985/86, had a shocking first season, then did decently-ish-but-not-remotely-outstandingly for the next 7 years, with a very brief interlude in the first three Tests in 1989 where he was impossible to get out.
That's precisely the point. If you pick a player for Tests not expecting him to perform from the point you've picked him, you've made a very serious error. Test cricket is not about picking players who'll one day be good, it's about picking the best side you've got right now. If and when someone is in the top eleven players in the country, then good, pick him, but not until such a time.
The point is that very few people are good at tests from the very start. There's almost always a bedding-in time, and it's near impossible to predict who will or won't have it. So if you're in the situation where you have to debut someone, you're really looking at his performances after three or four tests.
Indeed so. A bloke called Don Bradman made 1 & 18 on debut and was promptly dropped. Often wonder what happened to him...?
I can't remember if I replied to your post earlier in the thread - I certainly meant to - but I feel that those who struggle early tend more often to have been bad selections than good ones. Of course, it's not unusual for a player to have earnt his selection and struggle for a game or two, maybe even 5 or 6 (though they'll obviously have to have done something in those 5 or 6 to have played consistently). But I reckon it's even more common for people to be picked prematurely and thus (unsurprisingly) struggle from-the-off.
Hmm but that's often because England don't want to throw someone in at the deep end and so debut them in a less-difficult series where they do well (Prior at home to WI, Ambrose in NZ, Bell against Bangladesh) then they struggle against India, South Africa and Australia.
Interesting point, I hadn't thought of that.
Yeah that's true but they didn't have the typical fall from grace that was being referred to so they're not really relevant. In the case of players like Bellend it's just a case of him being good enough to take on Bangladesh but not Australia.
