The sample size is no longer small though. You’re talking double figures of debutants and most succeeded on debut and plenty embedded in and around the squad. And you can add the same to backing the likes of Crawley, Duckett, Pope.
They know what they want players to be good at, and that’s what they select them based on. And it usually seems to work…
None of the previous picks were remotely as out there. Saqib, Fisher and Overton had been earmarked for a while, two failed. The first two don't seem like returning soon due to fitness, Overton's body's probably over the hill. There was plenty of chat about Potts and Atkinson and they'd performed before debuting. Tongue was in poor form, but he'd shown FC ability between injuries and had pace, so was more logical in hindsight. Parkinson had good FC numbers, debuted by accident, and is unlikely to return. Livingstone was picked with an obvious view to a method and failed. Jacks did surprisingly well with the ball, failed with the bat and was dropped for Rehan. No-one would deny Smith had a good record and great potential with the bat, the questions were over whether he should be keeper when he wasn't doing it for his county and Robinson also has a good batting record. I'd argue these picks had enough performances to back their logic except Jacks and Livingstone.
Down to the three recent spinners, they're the biggest 'attributes over record' picks. Rehan might have looked good, but he'd barely played and generally you leave such players a bit. Hartley had a poor record when demonstrated success has usually been a better guide for spinners, his CC bowling was actually bad, many long hops. The logic was that he was tall, and it briefly succeeded.
But that pales in comparison to Bashir, I can't think of a similar recent selection from an established test nation. Six matches to average 67, and a single performance against Afghanistan B. Yet he's succeeded enough to be preferred spinner. I think from that Key, Stokes and McCullum think they can judge a player well enough that they'll fully expect success even if a player has had no success in the long form against better than 2nd-XI standard opposition. I look at Hull and think he might be a good bowler in a couple of years, he's got potential and ingredients, but no-one else would pick him at this point regardless of his attributes.
That said I'm asking myself why I've typed out such a long missive when the only thing is you having a ballyhoo about my (obviously subjective) conception of 'getting away with it'.