Were players dropped more in the past?

[Starfighter]

No, I don't mean catching wise, although that's a fair question to ask as well.

Whenever I'm reading up on old series (often pre-WWI), it feels like there is often a greater turnover of players between matches than would be expected nowadays, especially in England (not so much for touring sides who only had the bare 13 or 14 to choose from). Part of this will be the usual causes such as injuries, and part would be to do with the availability of amateurs. I'm also aware that counties used to have a lot more influence over selection. Nonetheless, it seems pretty common for players to be dropped much quicker than these days. And although bowlers still have the highest turnover, I always felt that batsmen were replaced more often too. These days it feels like any non-peripheral batsman needs to fail in multiple series, often over a year or more, until they're dropped.

The trouble of course is, how does one quantify this?

 

[Red]

Seemed to be more emphasis on getting most people in a touring party a test as series progressed rather than just picking the absolute best XI every test

 

[NotMcKenzie]

I think nowadays, 'never change a winning combination' is often followed to absurd lengths as well.

 

[Line and Length]

There were far more cases of players making themselves unavailable in a bygone era. The majority of players were amateurs and they relied on their employer to give them time off to play tests.

 

[the big bambino]

It’s mainly the English home season. Counties did refuse selectors and even individuals turned down invitations. The main reason is the length and congestion of a home season. No bowler, especially, can play as many matches, bowl as many deliveries and maintain form and fitness to warrant continual selection. Some bowlers only reached their peak towards the end of a season and thereby qualified for a tour whereas the early runners were burnt out.

Even batsmen had to maintain firm. Paynter got dropped in the middle of a golden run. Something that wouldn’t happen now.

However when England, especially - as it was their issue mainly - toured and players could devote their time to the national team then the side was more settled. Playing fewer fc matches than at home would also assist with burn out issues even though their dance card of matches was still pretty full.

 

[Midwinter]

In Australia you could compare the structure of the season before and after WSC.

Test matches were spread out through a season, more first class games played between Tests with the test players involved,.

So a poor test followed by a couple of bad FC games could influence the selectors.

HTH

 

[aussie tragic]

^ Now it's before and after BBL.

Ridiculous that the entire Test series are now played while no Shield games are going on. So if a player needs dropping they have to choose a replacement from Grade cricket or someone currently in white ball mindset from the BBL. Easier to keep the out of form player in the squad

 

[mr_mister]

During Bradman's era it seems the batting unit had plenty of players getting dropped/shuffled around

"In Bradman's first test he went for eighteen and for one
They dropped him like a gun "

imagine being dropped after one failure these days.

Also, Fingleton, Brown, Woodfull, Jackson and Ponsford all vying for opening spots in the early 30s lead to plenty of shuffling around too.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

The nature and size of "expenses" in the amateur era might have played more of a role than writers with rose-tinted glasses about the system would tell?

 

[BoyBrumby]

I suspect the two biggest factors in the reduction in cattle turnover (certainly for England, anyway) are central contracts and the increased rewards available.

The former has allowed our best and brightest some respite between England games as well as obviously showing which way the selectorial wind is blowing, and the latter has encouraged players to stay fitter and available for longer. Jimmy Anderson is still charging in on the cusp of his fifth decade and I don't see anyway that would've happened if he'd had to squeeze in a dozen or so FC and List A games for Lancs every season for the last couple of decades or wasn't adequately compensated for his efforts.

 

[tony p]

I think players were dropped more in the past, some quite unfairly, even after performing well, or dropped by a selection whim.

A few examples, all English players, as their selection policies have been at times strange over there.

JACK MacBryan, considered good enough to be picked to open the batting for England V S Africa in 1924 at Manchester, it rained, he never made it to the crease, Sutcliffe & Sandham were also in the side.
Never played again, Hobbs came back in for the next test. He was an Amateur, but a very good one, carried Somerset's batting for a number of years.
ERNEST TYLDESLEY, despite averaging 55, only played 14 Tests in an 8 year span, certainly less matches at the time, but other players like Woolley & Hendren were proffered to him, southern bias maybe. Three times was picked for 1 match in a series, when he played his only full series in S.A in 1927/28, he scored 520@65, beating Sutcliffe by over 100 runs. Only played 4 more Tests after this, which included a century & a fifty.
And Finally
DOUG INSOLE, played in 5 Test series, but only 9 matches in all, 4 times was considered good enough to be picked, but only played a single test in a series, played a full 5 test series in S.A. in 1956/57, and what do you know, topped the averages with, 312@39, in a low scoring series, ahead of the likes of May, Compton & Cowdrey. His reward, dropped after 1 more test in 1957, never to return.

So yes, I think players were dropped more and given less opportunities in the past.
Look at players like Bill Athey, picked 23 times, 919@22.97 & Wayne Larkins, 13 Matches, 493@20.54, did they deserve that many chances, I could have picked other examples, but they will do.

 

[trundler]

I think players were dropped more in the past, some quite unfairly, even after performing well, or dropped by a selection whim.

A few examples, all English players, as their selection policies have been at times strange over there.

JACK MacBryan, considered good enough to be picked to open the batting for England V S Africa in 1924 at Manchester, it rained, he never made it to the crease, Sutcliffe & Sandham were also in the side.
Never played again, Hobbs came back in for the next test. He was an Amateur, but a very good one, carried Somerset's batting for a number of years.
ERNEST TYLDESLEY, despite averaging 55, only played 14 Tests in an 8 year span, certainly less matches at the time, but other players like Woolley & Hendren were proffered to him, southern bias maybe. Three times was picked for 1 match in a series, when he played his only full series in S.A in 1927/28, he scored 520@65, beating Sutcliffe by over 100 runs. Only played 4 more Tests after this, which included a century & a fifty.
And Finally
DOUG INSOLE, played in 5 Test series, but only 9 matches in all, 4 times was considered good enough to be picked, but only played a single test in a series, played a full 5 test series in S.A. in 1956/57, and what do you know, topped the averages with, 312@39, in a low scoring series, ahead of the likes of May, Compton & Cowdrey. His reward, dropped after 1 more test in 1957, never to return.

So yes, I think players were dropped more and given less opportunities in the past.
Look at players like Bill Athey, picked 23 times, 919@22.97 & Wayne Larkins, 13 Matches, 493@20.54, did they deserve that many chances, I could have picked other examples, but they will do.

How can you not have Phil Mead in such a list?

 

[Magrat Garlick]

meanwhile this guy got to play 26 Tests in the same timeframe as Tyldesley and Mead, no wonder Hobbs didn't win more Tests https://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/10705.html

 

[AndrewB]

Chapman was captain for most of those games, of course, winning his first 9 games in charge, so it's not surprising they stuck with him for a while.

 

[tony p]

How can you not have Phil Mead in such a list?

I was just putting up 2 or 3 examples, I could have picked Mead, Mitchell-Innes, Phil Sharpe, Les Jackson, Fred Bakewell, Stan Nichols, Dennis Brookes among others who were treated harshly by the selectors.
Mead did have a 17 year Test career, although he obviously should have played more, frank Woolley getting his spot much of the time.

 

[trundler]

Chapman and Carr getting that many games ahead of Tyldesley and Mead was a disgrace.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Chapman was captain for most of those games, of course, winning his first 9 games in charge, so it's not surprising they stuck with him for a while.

yeah i know, the whole gentleman captain thing, and it was rank bullshit