GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
I mean they’ve had success with nearly every debutant they’ve picked. That’s not ‘getting away with it’
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** England vs Sri Lanka 21st August-10th September 2024
- Thread starter LangleyburyCCPlayer
- Start date
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Picking people with no first-class pedigree behind them based on attributes that would exclude many great bowlers and having them succeed very much is 'getting away with it'.
Calling up Hull would be pretty similar to us picking Cam McClure (except handedness, which Key will obviously have an eye on).
Last edited:
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
It’s not. It means they don’t put as much stock in championship performances as some here would like them to. But to date it is hard to say it isn’t working. Thats not getting away with it, it’s that they have a different method to what you might expect.
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Why so defensive? You could consider that picking a spinner mainly on the basis of height when he's taken practically no wickets and doesn't even appear to be very accurate is not a recipe for success. You could end up with someone worse than Suleiman Benn.
I still remember 2013/14 with Rankin, Finn and Tremlett, all of whom were just as reasonable 'attributes' call ups as any of these, if not moreso. It's not unreasonable to think succeeding (somewhat) at something that hasn't worked in the past to be 'getting away with it'. Your only issue seems to be with my definition of 'getting away with it'.
Howe_zat
Audio File
I mean he's probably not going to play, he's just a 20 year old seamer they're interested in having a look at, probably because he took wickets in that warm up game.
We've all seen dozens of county championship must-picks flop at Test level, acting like it's a be all and end all for selection is pointless
We've all seen dozens of county championship must-picks flop at Test level, acting like it's a be all and end all for selection is pointless
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
I don’t mean to come across as defensive. It’s probably a terminology point more than anything. You’re right about previous use of ‘attributes’ but I didn’t really mean it in terms of physicality and more what they’ve seen in how they play. Bashir was selected based on Stokes being impressed by a video of him bowling and then his showings on a Lions Tour for example.
I just think the ‘they could be worse than Benn’ line misses my point. Any player could fail. Nobody is calling for Will Williams to be called up despite an exemplary FC record. I mean I’m not sure if he qualifies or not but you get my point.
They pick players they believe will succeed. They don’t really trust the championship per se, and as such it’s not they outright ignore this but they look beyond that. This isn’t a new thing; I don’t think Root had a great championship record when picked. Before him Vaughan and Trescothick definitely didn’t. Ramprakash did,
I am sure somewhere along the way they’ll pick a few duds but bowlers they’ve picked since McCullum came in have nearly all done well. The majority of them took 5fers on debut ffs. I just don’t see how it’s getting away with it; they’ve got a method that is yielding fruit.
LangleyburyCCPlayer
State 12th Man
Think people are going a bit overboard here, he’s more than likely just going to be carrying drinks
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
You're over egging it. Considering failures of selecting more pedigreed players on an attributes basis, I don't think there's anything wrong with me thinking that succeeding doing something that, based on past experience, generally doesn't succeed is 'getting way with it'. I've seen similar calls with the same reasoning in the past here, though a few too many of them from Shane Warne. It's my definition.
I don't think Root's the greatest example. He was clearly on his way up at the time. Picking guys with bad records and/or practically no experience is a level beyond that kind of selection.
flibbertyjibber
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'd say the classic in recent times is Crawley. Very ordinary record for Kent and has played some match winning innings for England among his failures.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
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…
ImpatientLime
International Regular
Zak Crawley is there on nepotism and has a distinctly ordinary test record.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
And was our best batsman in the two toughest series we play.
flibbertyjibber
Request Your Custom Title Now!
While I wouldn't disagree at all with that I would say who is better?
Also I think his slip catching has helped him stay in the team as well as he doesn't drop many.
LangleyburyCCPlayer
State 12th Man
He might have got there on nepotism, but his record is a damn sight better than it was
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
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'.
Last edited:
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
The mistake you’re making here is that because the numbers supported the other selections, that the numbers must have been their rationale.
If we ignore Parkinson, who doesn’t really count, Livingstone is the only one you can really point to as not delivering. Well Jamie Overton didn’t set the world alight with the ball in his one chance, though scored a handy 97…
Saqib and Fisher weren’t McCullum era selections.
Jacks was definitely not an orthodox selection, and he wasn’t really ‘dropped’ they just wanted to give Rehan a whirl with the series won. Lo and behold that went well.
Harry Brook has been an unheralded success. Potts has done fairly well. Atkinson has started like a train. Hartley took 7 on debut. Bashir has done enough for his place to be safe for the time being. Jamie Smith a revelation. Tongue impressive in his two games to date, and would have likely played in India but for his injury troubles.
And then as I say. You add Duckett, and keeping faith in Crawley and Pope when the stats said not to.
They have picked players well. It’s seriously hard to dispute. The fact that you and others think conventional wisdom would have led to some being selected anyway doesn’t mean they used conventional wisdom to make those picks. That’s the big flaw in your line of thinking.
Forget all that ‘saving Test cricket’ bollocks but the output shows they do largely know what they’re doing.
If we ignore Parkinson, who doesn’t really count, Livingstone is the only one you can really point to as not delivering. Well Jamie Overton didn’t set the world alight with the ball in his one chance, though scored a handy 97…
Saqib and Fisher weren’t McCullum era selections.
Jacks was definitely not an orthodox selection, and he wasn’t really ‘dropped’ they just wanted to give Rehan a whirl with the series won. Lo and behold that went well.
Harry Brook has been an unheralded success. Potts has done fairly well. Atkinson has started like a train. Hartley took 7 on debut. Bashir has done enough for his place to be safe for the time being. Jamie Smith a revelation. Tongue impressive in his two games to date, and would have likely played in India but for his injury troubles.
And then as I say. You add Duckett, and keeping faith in Crawley and Pope when the stats said not to.
They have picked players well. It’s seriously hard to dispute. The fact that you and others think conventional wisdom would have led to some being selected anyway doesn’t mean they used conventional wisdom to make those picks. That’s the big flaw in your line of thinking.
Forget all that ‘saving Test cricket’ bollocks but the output shows they do largely know what they’re doing.
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Could you not spend five minutes on Youtube?