Taking a punt

[Richard]

Of course, technically, someone not being Test-standard doesn't make a selectorial decision bad.

Exactly, of course it doesn't. A selection should be judged on the merits of it - at the time it was made. Not what happened after it.

Mark Ramprakash was a complete and total failure for the first 6 years of his Test career. Does that mean it was an error to give him lots of chances? Of course it doesn't, no-one else was performing (that is, there weren't 4 other middle-order batsmen performing) and he was putting-up stupendous runs at the best level he was playing at below Test level.

Similarly, Paul Collingwood's Test selection had little to nothing going for it - there have always been better batsmen around the country. The fact that he's essentially proven himself good enough to play Test cricket doesn't change the fact that his selection was an error.

 

[Richard]

Interesting point, I hadn't thought of that.

Mind you some have had more testing baptisms - KP and Cook spring to mind. And a little further back Vaughan.

And it should be remembered that Vaughan was, when first picked, very much a punt that didn't really come-off. His first tour came after his worst season, 1999 (he'd averaged 27, having managed over 40 in 1998), and in 1999/2000, 2000 and 2000/01 (he only played once in the lattermost) he only really showed glimpses of potential, his overall performance was decidedly on the poor side of moderate. Was only from 2001 that he started to put-in the real performance. And yes, incredibly enough, it was 2000 that Vaughan finally started to produce the goods for Yorkshire as well.

Of course, Vaughan has pretty much done exactly, throughout his Test career, what David Byas said of him when Nasser Hussain rung him to ask about him. "He always looks good. But he always gets out." Vaughan's First-Class career for Yorkshire and England has been a study in disappointment and below-expectations performances.

 

[Uppercut]

Colly's useful though. Can see why you'd want to have him around.

 

[Richard]

IA Healy.

Reserve keeper for Qld, picked to tour Pakistan and keep for Australia. That's a phenomenal rise. GC was a selector then and said they simply went for players whom they thought had the right mental make up for test cricket, so low were Australia's fortunes back then.

He's a mud commentator Healy, but Holy Nellie, that was a massive punt which paid off.

Really? I never knew Healy wasn't even Qld's first-choice at the time of his selection in 1988/89. Well I never.

BTW could you comment on whether anyone honestly thought he had potential as a batsman pre-selection (given that it took him 5 years to transform from a glorified tailender into a genuine Test-class lower-middle-order batsman)?

 

[Richard]

Colly's useful though. Can see why you'd want to have him around.

He's an excellent squad member and a hell of a twelfth-man. But he should never have played Test cricket and for most of his career he was only capable of scoring runs on the flattest of decks. Of course, he's shown his ability to do more than that in the last year and there's now no doubt he's Test-class, but there is no way he should have been in the side, at any point, purely based on his batting.

 

[Uppercut]

And it should be remembered that Vaughan was, when first picked, very much a punt that didn't really come-off. His first tour came after his worst season, 1999 (he'd averaged 27, having managed over 40 in 1998), and in 1999/2000, 2000 and 2000/01 (he only played once in the lattermost) he only really showed glimpses of potential, his overall performance was decidedly on the poor side of moderate. Was only from 2001 that he started to put-in the real performance.

Of course, Vaughan has pretty much done exactly, throughout his Test career, what David Byas said of him when Nasser Hussain rung him to ask about him. "He always looks good. But he always gets out." Vaughan's First-Class career for Yorkshire and England has been a study in disappointment and below-expectations performances.

I think this is why i'm in favour of taking much more notice of batsmen's stats when selecting than bowlers. What makes a test-quality batsman? The ability to adapt to different situations, mental strength, concentration, consistency and run-making ability. None of these things are apparent by watching a player- it's one area where the long-term figures generally tell the story better than watching the guy bat.

 

[Burgey]

Really? I never knew Healy wasn't even Qld's first-choice at the time of his selection in 1988/89. Well I never.

BTW could you comment on whether anyone honestly thought he had potential as a batsman pre-selection (given that it took him 5 years to transform from a glorified tailender into a genuine Test-class lower-middle-order batsman)?

I recall my late grandfather noting when he was selected that he was regarded as the batsman most likely from the under 19s level, but I don't know whether that was a stats-based thinkg or whether it was also a "gut-feeling" by those who saw him play at that time.

I think Anderson was the 1st choice Qld keeper at the time, or Ray Phillips. Whoever it was got an injury, Healy filled in for a feww games. The rest, as they say...

 

[Richard]

Apparently Healy played 2 under-19 Tests ("Youth Tests" as they were called in those days) and did not-much.

So must've been based on some other level.

 

[Burgey]

Hmmm, interesting. Not sure where that came from then.

 

[Noble One]

I'm not aware of the circumstances that lead to Ian Healy's selection. I do know it wasn't on the back of Sheffield Shield performances. Believe Ian Healy had only scored one half century before he was selected for the Pakistan tour.

Wicket keeping stocks where at an all time low at the time; Zoehrer, Dyer, Phillips, hardly suprising the selectors took a shot at a young wicketkeeper.

 

[Top_Cat]

Really? I never knew Healy wasn't even Qld's first-choice at the time of his selection in 1988/89. Well I never.

I've told you exactly that before, ya doofus.

BTW could you comment on whether anyone honestly thought he had potential as a batsman pre-selection (given that it took him 5 years to transform from a glorified tailender into a genuine Test-class lower-middle-order batsman)?

Nope, was for 'keeping alone but even then, was a huge punt. Wasn't known throughout the land as an awesome 'keeper at the time. Wasn't known full stop, really. As I've said a few times, he wasn't QLD's first choice 'keeper until Anderson was injured.

I'm not aware of the circumstances that lead to Ian Healy's selection. I do know it wasn't on the back of Sheffield Shield performances. Believe Ian Healy had only scored one half century before he was selected for the Pakistan tour.

Wicket keeping stocks where at an all time low at the time; Zoehrer, Dyer, Phillips, hardly suprising the selectors took a shot at a young wicketkeeper.

Zoerher's non-selection wasn't down to ability, really. Was a far better bat and 'keeper than Heals at the time and was a better 'keeper than the others too. It was his personality that did for him.

 

[SJS]

The problem with that example is that Rohit Sharma actually has an excellent statistical record in domestic cricket.

I have never EVER considered the great bating stats on dead tracks against mediocre bowling in the Indian domestic cricket to be a great indicator of class.

I was referring to his performance on the occasions he played for the Indian side in various fornats.

 

[biased indian]

Dravid In ODI's had a very bad start to his career note that he just blazed away after that but had a decent career stats

 

[SJS]

• Atapattu was 18 when he made his Test debut for Sri Lanka.
  
• By the time he was 25 he had scored just 182 runs in 9 Tests at 10.7 per innings !
  
• He went on to play another 81 Tests to score 5320 runs at 42.9 !!

 

[biased indian]

• Atapattu was 18 when he made his Test debut for Sri Lanka.
  
• By the time he was 25 he had scored just 182 runs in 9 Tests at 10.7 per innings !
  
• He went on to play another 81 Tests to score 5320 runs at 42.9 !!

u sure about that 107?? missing decimal ??

 

[SJS]

u sure about that 107?? missing decimal ??

Corrected even before you posted. Check the "quoted one in your post

 

[SJS]

Saeed Anwar scored a pair on debut against West Indies in 1990.

He wasn't played again till 1994. Then he got 16 and 7 against Kiwis in the first Test match to have 23 runs in his first four inings over four years !

Fortunately Pakistan played him in the next Test, he got 169 and the rest is history.

Graham Gooch too got a pair on debut against Australia at home in 1975. He was played in the next Test and scored 6 and 31.

He went out of the side for three years.

Had moderate scores against Pakistan in 1978 then slightly better against Kiwis. Averaged under 25 in his first dozen Tests with just two fifties against Kiwis.

At the end of his 21st Test he had a modest average of 32.1 and no three figure score.

In the next 87 games he scored almost 7500 runs at 57.5 with 20 centuries !

 

[zaremba]

In the next 87 games he scored almost 7500 runs at 57.5 with 20 centuries !

Blimey, I had no idea that his period of excellence was so sustained. When was his 22nd Test?

 

[SJS]

Blimey, I had no idea that his period of excellence was so sustained. When was his 22nd Test?

June 1980 - This one

.... and this one in June 1994 was his 108th . Between these two (both included, he enjoyed phenomenal success over 14-15 years of Test cricket.

 

[SJS]

I think Gooch is the finest opening batsman since Len Hutton.

He really faced great pace attacks (West Indians, Pakistanis and Australians were spared at least from facing their own) and came out on top. Compared to him Gavaskar faced weaker pace attacks.

He certainly has the most impressive record against top class fast bowling.