*Official* 3rd Test at Edgbaston

[Midwinter]

"Form" doesn't necessarily mean much but equally I think people have a tendency to write off batsmen based on past performances when there's evidence they may have improved. Bairstow is what, 25? A lot of highly successful international batsmen have poor periods early in their career and look to have been found out in one way or another and come back a while later with a much better idea of how to play to their strengths. Sometimes it's a technique overhaul like Clarke and sometimes its just experience etc. If Bairstow is making a ton of runs and there's clear opportunities to bring him in for an underperforming player, he's worth another shot IMO. If he was 35 or this had happened several times in the past it might be a bit different.

I think form not mattering applies more when a player is a known quantity. Weight of runs in domestic cricket could be evidence that someone is legitimately better than before.

A look back at the past shows many players weren't successful the first time around.
Matthew Hayden only established himself at the third attempt. Same with Justin Langer.

 

[Uppercut]

It's almost like this is why we need real people selectors instead of adding everyone's name to a spreadsheet and pressing

For what it's worth, some people have investigated the form thing. I honestly don't think selectors put that much stock in form if they have other info about a player anyway.

****, published in 1985 and still hardly anyone involved in the game understands the argument. This whole research thing might be a waste of time.

 

[hendrix]

It really isn't. If someone you think is a worse batsman is making bucketload of runs, then you pick him, because you might be wrong about how good that player is. The attitude above is that of an elitist.

No. In that case, the worse batsman is not actually worse, it's just that the selector's perception is wrong.

 

[harsh.ag]

If a batsman has a genuine, permanent upswing (say, from fixing his technique), that's not said to be good form; it's understood that he's genuinely better than he once was.

If you think Jonny Bairstow is genuinely better than he once was, and is genuinely a better batsman than James Taylor, by all means pick him. But you're not picking him "on form", are you? You're picking him because he's better.

What if he's just doing better because of something you can't observe that easily, like reading the conditions better, researching the opposition bowlers more etc. That's not valid?

 

[TheJediBrah]

you're not quite understanding what I'm saying. It's not a "lucky period". It's just that scores are seldom distributed perfectly evenly.

say your average is 2, across 10 innings.

that could be:

1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3
just as often as it could be:
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
The point being, the run of good scores can just be a random grouping of scores that aren't distributed for perfect sampling.

If a batsman has a genuine, permanent upswing (say, from fixing his technique), that's not said to be good form; it's understood that he's genuinely better than he once was.

If you think Jonny Bairstow is genuinely better than he once was, and is genuinely a better batsman than James Taylor, by all means pick him. But you're not picking him "on form", are you? You're picking him because he's better.

No, because form isn't indefinite. All players will have periods in and out of form, it's almost inevitable. If you want to see that as a player just repeatedly becoming "better than he once was" and then "worse than he once was" and repeating that cycle then that's just a different way of saying "in and out of form".

And as I said earlier, random grouping of good/bad scores can happen as well, but that's a completely different thing.

 

[harsh.ag]

No. In that case, the worse batsman is not actually worse, it's just that the selector's perception is wrong.

But they will argue what you've been saying, that the player in question isn't actually better. And what can anyone say about that then?

 

[Top_Cat]

****, published in 1985 and still hardly anyone involved in the game understands the argument. This whole research thing might be a waste of time.

Dammit.

 

[Zinzan]

Cook
Compton
Root
KP
Bell
Stokes
Buttler
Moeen
Wood
Broad
Anderson

I much prefer that line-up & I'm guessing this chap would too;

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I feel like you're not actually reading what I've written.
Steve Smith has scored very well recently because he's very good. That's not to say he's always going to score that highly, but that group of scores is within his bell curve, so to speak.

The argument for picking a worse batsman over a better batsman because one is "in form" is ridiculous.

Well, I don't think dropping a batsman because they are out of form is ridiculous, assuming the streak of poor performances is significant enough. So I guess it's a given that picking on form to some degree is a valid concept.

Honestly I think this is just a terminology thing, because there's a lot of ways to think about it. The real issue here is it can be hard to distinguish form from ability. In reality neither is static, batsmen improve and get worse, and form comes and goes, so I think inherently I agree with your point that picking a player you believe to be fundamentally worse because you think they are on a hot streak or whatever is dumb. It's more that you think their hot streak represents an improvement in their potential to make runs, just like a long period of low scores might indicate that a batsman has gotten worse, been figured out, or that their confidence is shot and they are playing below their normal level because of it.

The argument isn't "quick, Bairstow sucks but he's scoring runs right now so let's pick him before he goes back to being bad again", it's "Bairstow is scoring runs right now which means we know he's playing good cricket and might meet his potential if we pick him now". Behind that is a belief that he might be a more capable test batsman than last time he was picked, based on the runs he has scored. Ie that the potential is higher, not just that he's temporarily performing better than he "should" or something, which seems to be how you're interpreting "form".

 

[Gnske]

The argument for picking a worse batsman over a better batsman because one is "in form" is ridiculous.

I've read some stupid things but this only barely makes my top 5 for the day

Disappointed

 

[Compton]

Why not just use the simplest logic?

If Australia were picking England's team, who would they leave out? They'd much rather face Ballance and Lyth (who they've worked out) than Taylor or KP.

 

[Prince EWS]

It really isn't. If someone you think is a worse batsman is making bucketload of runs, then you pick him, because you might be wrong about how good that player is. The attitude above is that of an elitist.

You're confusing form for performance. How a player actually performs should form a substantial part in any good estimation of how good that player is, but we all know enough about cricket to realise that how many runs someone has made in the last three months is not the best indicator of likely future performance we can muster, particularly when it's done at a lower level.

What I've really learned from reading this entire discussion is how different everyone's idea of what 'form' is actually is. To me, form is a cyclical element of cricket separate from real quality, not a statistical compilation of a player's short-term performances. There's too much variance in cricket to determine a player's form just by looking at how he's performed recently; the player himself is really the only one who will have a grasp on his form. To avoid picking too much on form, then, isn't to stubbornly ignore actual performance and pick purely based on eye, but to attempt to weed out those cyclical factors which may temporarily distort a player's output. To me, this involves avoiding the knee-jerk reactions of things like dropping a good player purely because he's had a few consecutive failures or promoting a player purely based on three quarters of a good domestic season.. and instead looking for more substantive changes in quality that aren't so subject to cyclical factors and variance, like observed technical alterations or more longer term changes in performance.

 

[Uppercut]

The argument against form is that the player's last five or six scores don't tell you any more about his next score than the five or six before that. It's just that the batsman topping the run charts this season isn't more likely to score runs in his next game than the one topping last year's run charts. So it's obviously a positive that Bairstow is playing well, and I 100% agree with Faaip's post about how he might have improved. But the discussion is paying disproportionate attention to his very-recent run of scores, because it shows he's "in form", but the nature of the game means that this doesn't tell you much. Root is averaging 49 for the summer; if Haddin held that one catch at Cardiff he'd be averaging 32.

 

[hendrix]

What if he's just doing better because of something you can't observe that easily, like reading the conditions better, researching the opposition bowlers more etc. That's not valid?

But they will argue what you've been saying, that the player in question isn't actually better. And what can anyone say about that then?

1. Good performance and good form aren't the same thing. Good performance deserves reward. Because good performance is an indicator of ability.

2. I didn't say that distinguishing between form and ability is easy. I said picking based on form, NOT ability, is wrong. Because form, by popular definition, doesn't exist.

 

[GIMH]

Root is averaging 49 for the summer; if Haddin held that one catch at Cardiff he'd be averaging 32.

This line of logic assumes everything else remains the same after Haddin's drop and you know this isn't true. What's to say he wouldn't have been driven on to score a huge second innings ton or played better at Lord's? Impossible to know.

 

[hendrix]

Well, I don't think dropping a batsman because they are out of form is ridiculous, assuming the streak of poor performances is significant enough. So I guess it's a given that picking on form to some degree is a valid concept.

Honestly I think this is just a terminology thing, because there's a lot of ways to think about it. The real issue here is it can be hard to distinguish form from ability. In reality neither is static, batsmen improve and get worse, and form comes and goes, so I think inherently I agree with your point that picking a player you believe to be fundamentally worse because you think they are on a hot streak or whatever is dumb. It's more that you think their hot streak represents an improvement in their potential to make runs, just like a long period of low scores might indicate that a batsman has gotten worse, been figured out, or that their confidence is shot and they are playing below their normal level because of it.

The argument isn't "quick, Bairstow sucks but he's scoring runs right now so let's pick him before he goes back to being bad again", it's "Bairstow is scoring runs right now which means we know he's playing good cricket and might meet his potential if we pick him now". Behind that is a belief that he might be a more capable test batsman than last time he was picked, based on the runs he has scored. Ie that the potential is higher, not just that he's temporarily performing better than he "should" or something, which seems to be how you're interpreting "form".

Yes, I agree with all of that.

 

[hendrix]

No, because form isn't indefinite. All players will have periods in and out of form, it's almost inevitable. If you want to see that as a player just repeatedly becoming "better than he once was" and then "worse than he once was" and repeating that cycle then that's just a different way of saying "in and out of form".

And as I said earlier, random grouping of good/bad scores can happen as well, but that's a completely different thing.

Well, I agree that players get better and worse. Players aren't robots with 15 years lifespans.

It's the concept of picking a player on a hot streak over a better player, purely because that guy is on a hot streak (which doesn't really exist), that doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Spikey]

This line of logic assumes everything else remains the same after Haddin's drop and you know this isn't true. What's to say he wouldn't have been driven on to score a huge second innings ton or played better at Lord's? Impossible to know.

the fact that he averages 32 for the summer imo

 

[TheJediBrah]

Well, I agree that players get better and worse. Players aren't robots with 15 years lifespans.

It's the concept of picking a player on a hot streak over a better player, purely because that guy is on a hot streak (which doesn't really exist), that doesn't make sense to me.

*facepalm*

 

[Zinzan]

Root is averaging 49 for the summer; if Haddin held that one catch at Cardiff he'd be averaging 32.

I get your greater point, but this kind of example is a real slippery slope. Using this logic, could we also say Smith would have averaged a lot less in the series if he edged the below Stuart Broad delivery at Lord's when he was on just 16? Of course we wouldn't dream of it .....yet, plays and misses aren't that much 'less fortunate' than getting away very a difficult-ish dropped catch..or getting a not out LBW decision in your favour, that on the replay shows to be hitting the stumps, but not enough to be overturned.


27.3

Broad to Smith, no run, beats him, Broad hits the seam and gets the ball to wobble past the outside edge as Smith hung his bat out