Well obviously, or they wouldn't be picking such a **** team. If they actually think that Paranavitana and Thirimanne are better batsmen than Samaraweera then they have far bigger problems than I imagined. Generally if you're criticising something though it's because you don't agree with it..
The main problem with "building to the future" in Test cricket is that the future never actually comes. In ODIs you have the World Cup - a series far more significant than any other in the format - so I can see the merits in building towards that and gearing your squad to peak at that point. The time eventually does come when you pick for the here and now. In Tests though it just never ends. If you pick a side that you think that will stick together for the next three years then in three years time when you're thinking your less-than-ideal selections might come off, you'll be selecting with an eye for the team in another three years and hence you'll have probably dropped players you'd selected three years prior just because they won't be around in another three years, making your selections three years ago invalid. Fact is, players retire, and no amount of "forward planning" can change that fact - all it does it limit what you actually get out of them. There's no benefit of infinitely selecting a team for a time other than the present as it never ends and you'll always end up with a side fractionally worse than what it could be.
Don't necessarily agree with this. It shows the importance of being able to identify talent and persevere with it. Of course if you are chossing players that don't stick around or do not develop three years down the line, not sure it's the process that needs looking at but those responsible for not identifying the right players. Of course not every selection will come off.
I personally don't subscribe to your opinion of always selecting the side for the here and now, and I think maybe countries generally in a better situation than SL, can afford to rest one or two players and give opportunities to younger players to experience top level cricket. I think that's a sensible approach, and very beneficial in the long run. Selection committee's have to look to the future, imagine if Sanga, Mahela, Samaraweera, and Dilshan all retire from Test cricket within 12 months, the period of re-building with a young batting line-up with no or very little little Test cricket will be extensive, and that doesn't have to be the case.
I appreciate your point about building towards a World Cup in one-day cricket and as such, there isn't a similar point to build towards in Test cricket, but common sense plays a part. I think there are many different scenarios where a selection committee may opt to go down a different route and experiment with one or two younger players, even if it weakens the side for a few series',
Yes, you should. But not by giving them a free ticket into the team at the expense of a better player. By all means, keep them in the squad, let them play tour games and even get a game when there are injuries, but in a series such as this, where Sri Lanka can't afford to play anything less than their best team, you have to be focussed on the immediate result rather than a series in 4 years time where
hopefully the youngster in question will have learnt from his experience in these tests and just
might do well.
edit: Damn you PEWS. Said it so much better than I did
Not sure what you mean by a 'free ticket'? Presumably selecting someone that doesn't deserve to be in the side ? Well, again that's down to the selectors, certain players will be selected on potential, some by weight of runs or wickets.
I agree it's important to get young players around the national squad without necessarily giving them a place in the Test side. I'm not sure it's a bad time for SL to tinker about with their batting line-up, especially when they have established players in the team, in theory to shoulder the responsibility of getting the runs while the newcomer settles in.
Opinions vary.
wait is that meant to be serious?
