Taking a punt

[BoyBrumby]

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.

Bollocks of the absolute first grade. A selector picks a bloke who performs & it's an error? That's nonsense. No other word for it

 

[GIMH]

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.

Fair point, although Cook's early performances were above the standard that they have been typically over the last 18 months (although he genuinely did get a fair amount of luck early on).

Shah was another one I had in mind, impressive 88 on debut in searing heat in India. Everyone cried out for him to get another crack, and he wound up failing against West indies home & away.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Bollocks of the absolute first grade. A selector picks a bloke who performs & it's an error? That's nonsense. No other word for it

I can see how it can be argued that it might be a "bad selection", though I'd disagree. However, you can't call it an error if that selection contributes towards a victory.

 

[GIMH]

I can see the line of thinking - when Richard says that a selection should be judged on the factors that contributed it not what became of it, I agree with the first half, in that the logic behind the selection should be taken into account. However I think decisions should all be judged on whether or not they were vindicated. Collingwood was presumably picked on the basis that the selectors felt he could contribute with a steely determination in the way Hussain previously had done (obviously Colly played a few tests in the same team as Nasser, but not many) and he has pretty much done this consistently, so it was a good call IMO.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I can see how it can be argued that it might be a "bad selection", though I'd disagree. However, you can't call it an error if that selection contributes towards a victory.

It's what I suppose stumpski had in mind when he created the thread: a punt.

Obviously if a selector throws too many Hail Mary passes some are going to go astray, but to say that the selection of a bloke who was picked when other players have better records on paper and then performs is "an error" is, well, wrong-headed &, happily, not how sport works.

"Sorry, Sir Alf; I know Geoff Hurst scored a hat-trick in the world cup final, but Jimmy Greaves had the better record, so you were wrong. Here's your P45. But thanks for the world cup and all."

 

[silentstriker]

This is not a poker game though. This is cricket where you have to identify talent. That talent may have initial failures but if you believe the talent is there, there is no harm persisting for a while.

It's not an even money gamble though, is it? The value of having Shane Warne's career for for 140 matches is far greater than the cost of having Bryce McGain for 10 matches.

Next week: It's 50/50, it either happens or it doesn't...

That's not what we're talking about though - you're talking about longshots. Which, by definition, means the chances are low it works out. So do you go through 90 tests with eight different players before you find a decent one that players for 90 Tests? So out of 180 Tests, you've sacrificed 90. Not good odds. If you bet on an inside straight and get it, you're not a genius, because people forget the other seven times you didn't and lost money. It's not a good play if you want to win money. It's a bad play whether you win or not.

I'd much rather take proven guys who will have a good chance of giving me a decent number of Tests from the beginning. If someone is good enough, they'll prove it at the FC level. Maximize benefits and minimize risks.

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.

If you're talking about longshots, you're not playing the odds. Playing the odds would be taking consistent FC performers. And it's actually even worse than that - because if the longshot was going to come good, he would likely come good in FC cricket too, so just wait for that....you take away huge amounts of risk, while giving away very little of the benefits.

 

[Manee]

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

Not necessarily true. If you pick a medium pacer at 75mph or a Luke Wright esque slogger, who have good statistics behind them, then you can be held responsible if they fail.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, but I think what he's saying is that the best available players aren't necessarily going to be test class.

 

[silentstriker]

That's what the selectors are for - you take several people who are all doing well, and then make a decision based on your evaluation, team needs, etc. There is rarely a clear cut choice that is heads and shoulders above, but if there is, the best bet is to try that out first. If you can waste 10 Tests on a longshot as some have suggested, you can certaintly do the same for a guy who is the best at his position in FC cricket.

 

[Uppercut]

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.

That's fair enough, but it does beg the question of why they even have domestic Indian cricket if success there has no correlation with success at test level.

 

[Richard]

Bollocks of the absolute first grade. A selector picks a bloke who performs & it's an error? That's nonsense. No other word for it

Whether a bloke performs is absolutely, completely and totally irrelevant to whether his selection was a good or bad one. There's absolutely no point discussing the matter with someone who insists that whether a player performs or not is important to how good or bad a selection was.

A selection should be judged purely and simply on what was available to the selectors at the time the selection was made. Any fool can judge in hindsight.

 

[Richard]

However I think decisions should all be judged on whether or not they were vindicated.

Why? All of that comes after the selection is made. Same way a dropped catch comes after a stroke is played, so the batsman never, under any circumstance, deserves any credit for it.

Whether a decision was successful and whether it was good - and not just in selection - are two different things.

 

[Richard]

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.

That's just a little disingenious, for my money, TBH. Gooch between '78 and '88 was indeed a very fine batsman, and the success he had against high-class seam attacks was indeed over and beyond what most were capable of. But unfortunately, he did not cash-in against weaker attacks to the degree he should have.

However, Gooch of '90-'94 was obviously far, far over and beyond Gooch of '78-'88 (ie, most of his career). In this time he was a colossus. Good bowling and bad bowling - he pulverised both alike. If he'd managed to start this earlier he could indeed be called, fairly, the greatest opener since Hutton.

But for the greater part of his career he was nothing more than a moderate batsman who roused himself to be pretty damn superb when the best pace attacks came calling.

BTW for those who don't know - on debut where he made a pair, Gooch was caught on a sticky. The Australian seam bowler who got him out (I forget who) commented - and yes, there was jest in there, but there was also a serious point being made - that he knew Gooch was going to be good because the ball he nicked most batsmen would have failed to get anywhere near. Nonetheless, I think it's a shame Gooch didn't debut in 1978 - or, maybe, 1976.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Whether a bloke performs is absolutely, completely and totally irrelevant to whether his selection was a good or bad one. There's absolutely no point discussing the matter with someone who insists that whether a player performs or not is important to how good or bad a selection was.

A selection should be judged purely and simply on what was available to the selectors at the time the selection was made. Any fool can judge in hindsight.

Yeah, and that isn't what selectors are paid to do. Their jobs are to exercise their judgement as to which players will perform in tests. When they do perform it's simply wrong to say the selection was an error because Player X averages a few runs more in the county championship.

& obviously a player's performance at least in part informs whether a selection was correct or not. The buck stops somewhere.

 

[four_or_six]

I don't get how anything other than whether a player performs well is an indicator of a good selection. That's the selector's job, to pick players to perform well.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, and that isn't what selectors are paid to do. Their jobs are to exercise their judgement as to which players will perform in tests. When they do perform it's simply wrong to say the selection was an error because Player X averages a few runs more in the county championship.

& obviously a player's performance at least in part informs whether a selection was correct or not. The buck stops somewhere.

A selector's job is simple - pick the best team available for Test cricket. If that means keeping picking players who do moderately (or even sometimes poorly) because there's no-one better available then that's what they must do. If that means ignoring your gut feel because there's hard evidence that another player is better than the one you think is going to turn-out best, then that's what you must do.

It is not a selector's job to try to be clever and know better than the game. All who do that come unstuck regularly. Nor is it a selector's fault if the best players available aren't all that good. And anyone who blames selectors for the inadequacy of their players knows nothing about the game.

 

[Richard]

I don't get how anything other than whether a player performs well is an indicator of a good selection. That's the selector's job, to pick players to perform well.

It's the selectors' job to pick the best players for Test cricket, as I say. The best indicator - by a long, long way - of who the best players are is which players have performed best at the next level down from Test cricket.

If a selector makes a bad pick and gets lucky because the player happens to turn-out Test-class, that's not good selection. If a selector picks someone before they're Test-class and they turn-out Test-class eventually, the initial selection still wasn't a good one (it would have been if they'd waited until the player had hinted, via his domestic performances, at being Test-class, then picked him).

Equally, if a selector picks someone like Mark Ramprakash and it turns-out he's not good enough, that's not bad selection. You pick the players who've earned their selection, and ignore those who haven't. Domestic performance isn't all there is to earning selection, but it's an absolute must without which you cannot earn selection.

 

[BoyBrumby]

A selector's job is simple - pick the best team available for Test cricket. If that means keeping picking players who do moderately (or even sometimes poorly) because there's no-one better available then that's what they must do. If that means ignoring your gut feel because there's hard evidence that another player is better than the one you think is going to turn-out best, then that's what you must do.

It is not a selector's job to try to be clever and know better than the game. All who do that come unstuck regularly. Nor is it a selector's fault if the best players available aren't all that good. And anyone who blames selectors for the inadequacy of their players knows nothing about the game.

Know better than the game? Jesus, you're beyond parody. It's a wonder you don't choke on your own sanctimony.

So, no point going by anything other than averages & when that doesn't work it's the players fault, not the selectors? Where do I sign up, sounds the best job in the world.

Idiot.

 

[four_or_six]

It's the selectors' job to pick the best players for Test cricket, as I say. The best indicator - by a long, long way - of who the best players are is which players have performed best at the next level down from Test cricket.

If a selector makes a bad pick and gets lucky because the player happens to turn-out Test-class, that's not good selection. If a selector picks someone before they're Test-class and they turn-out Test-class eventually, the initial selection still wasn't a good one (it would have been if they'd waited until the player had hinted, via his domestic performances, at being Test-class, then picked him).

Equally, if a selector picks someone like Mark Ramprakash and it turns-out he's not good enough, that's not bad selection. You pick the players who've earned their selection, and ignore those who haven't. Domestic performance isn't all there is to earning selection, but it's an absolute must without which you cannot earn selection.

Warne was a good selection, he didn't have good domestic performance. Neither did Trescothick or Vaughan really. The problem with us judging selections using your criteria is that we don't have the whole picture. What might look like a bad selection to us because of domestic performance could be an inspired choice from the selectors because they've taken into account temperament/ambition/conditions etc.

 

[Richard]

Know better than the game? Jesus, you're beyond parody. It's a wonder you don't choke on your own sanctimony.

It's also a wonder you've never brought out the patronising crap for this before now. Because I've been using that phrase, on the forums, for years now. Yes, indeed, many selectors do think they know better than the game - the game is the best judge of how good a player is, not a selector. Too often a selector picks a player based on potential, when what a good selector should do is wait for the potential that they can observe to start coming to fruition, then pick the player for Tests.

So, no point going by anything other than averages & when that doesn't work it's the players fault, not the selectors?

Again, well done in reading something that's not there. What I actually said was averages are the fundamental basic (not just banal career averages, naturally) and that no selector ever has any business to ignore them. I also said, on a separate matter, that if the pool of talent is relatively shallow, the public's misguided "there must be someone better out there" notions are what's wrong, not the selectors who keep faith with what they know is the best available.

Where do I sign up, sounds the best job in the world.

Anyway, yes, being a selector should be a pretty simple job, and it's those who overcomplicate it (that's most, BTW) who make it as error-strewn as it is. There are, as I've said ad nauseum, a good few CW posters who'd do a far better job. Goes without saying that it's unlikely you'd be amongst them though.