Channel 9 Commentators - Very Poor Form

[Richard]

How does the fact they didn't take bundles of wickets in their first couple of Tests make the selection an error?

Conversely, how many bowlers have we seen over the years take a bundle of wickets early on then fall over form-wise and are never heard from again? Does this then make their selection a 'good' one? Alex Tudor took 4 wickets on debut, the Waugh twins two of them. Does this mean his was a genius selection?

Rick Ponting scored 96 in his first Test so it looked like his selection was justified but then he spent the next 5 years in and out of the team as he sometimes looked woefully out of his depth. Was his selection a good or bad one?

Fact is, even with bundles of form behind them, all selections are partially a gamble. You never really do know about the quality of a player until you select them, form at the lower levels is only really a guide.

I know all selections are a gamble, I've said several times that no selector really has a very strong idea of what'll happen when they first pick a player for international cricket, even if they've been averaging 60 for the last 3 years with the best technique you'll ever see. Thus they (ie, selections) should be judged not remotely on what happens to the player after he plays the level he's been selected for, but what merits the selection had going for it before the selection was made. IE, how the player had been doing at the best level available to him at that time.

The poor initial performances were simply a result of the bad selection.

 

[JimmyGS]

Why? How does how the player performed matter in the slightest to whether it was a good selection?

You're an idiot, and I'm done with the argument.

 

[Top_Cat]

I know all selections are a gamble, I've said several times that no selector really has a very strong idea of what'll happen when they first pick a player for international cricket, even if they've been averaging 60 for the last 3 years with the best technique you'll ever see. Thus they (ie, selections) should be judged not remotely on what happens to the player after he plays the level he's been selected for, but what merits the selection had going for it before the selection was made. IE, how the player had been doing at the best level available to him at that time.

The poor initial performances were simply a result of the bad selection.

Okay well I'm out with regards the bad/good selection argument. Pointless to continue.

However, from a more macro perspective, one wonders why it even matters. Let's say we agree McG and Warne were poor selections. After around 1300 Test wickets between them, so what?

 

[Son Of Coco]

They didn't though. Both McGrath and Warne failed very badly indeed in their first few Tests, proving the selections on instinct to be mistaken.

McGrath, though, TBF was an injury replacement for someone who'd not been expected to be lost anywhere near so quickly as he was.

It took McGrath 8 tests and Warne 4 to perform well at test level. Warne was picked from nowhere andso was McGrath (after about 8 First Class matches if I remember correctly). Obviously the selectors saw something they thought could be special. Some players perform better when put under pressure and I think McGrath proved this in the West Indies in 95 when he became the spearhead after McDermott had to go home.

I don't think setting the bar at a great performance first time out as the point at which selectors pass or fail is realistic or sensible.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Len Hutton made 0 and 1 in his First Test. Each selector should have had at least three vital organs removed for such rampant stupidity.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Not really. If they'd been selected later, after getting a bit better, it's perfectly conceivable that they'd have taken to Test cricket like ducks to water.

It's a step up in level though Richard, and thus requires more than just good first-class figures.

 

[Richard]

You're an idiot

Actually I'm not, I'm very smart (and that's not arrogance, that's the way it is), and direct abuse is banned as per CW forum rules, so I'd cut those sorts of comments out if you don't want mods giving you warnings if I were you.

and I'm done with the argument.

Good.

 

[Richard]

Okay well I'm out with regards the bad/good selection argument. Pointless to continue.

However, from a more macro perspective, one wonders why it even matters. Let's say we agree McG and Warne were poor selections. After around 1300 Test wickets between them, so what?

Warne was a poor selection initially. From 1992/93 in NZ onwards he clearly wasn't a poor one.

And TBH I've never studied MacGill in intimate detail - his selection might've made perfect sense.

 

[Richard]

It took McGrath 8 tests and Warne 4 to perform well at test level.

It took Warne 9. It wasn't until the NZ tour of 1992/93 that he started to perform consistently. Before that he'd taken a second-innings 3-12 and a second-innings 7-not-that-many and had done absolutely nothing whatsoever besides and averaged 50.

Warne was picked from nowhere andso was McGrath (after about 8 First Class matches if I remember correctly). Obviously the selectors saw something they thought could be special.

Maybe, maybe they picked lucky. Either way, picking someone because you think you "see something that could be special" is a proven route to countless failures (even though you'll get the odd success thrown in there) and it's much better to wait until the player has a more convincing case. Warne and McGrath were both rather good so it's unlikely anyone'd have had to wait long.

Some players perform better when put under pressure and I think McGrath proved this in the West Indies in 95 when he became the spearhead after McDermott had to go home.

I don't know about performing better when put under pressure, it's more a case of things which would cause some players to put themselves under pressure bring out the best in others.

I don't think setting the bar at a great performance first time out as the point at which selectors pass or fail is realistic or sensible.

It isn't. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how good a selection is. A bad selection can pay huge dividends in a player's first game (or first 7 games), and a good one can be completely unsuccessful initially.

A selection should be judged purely on what it had going for it before the player was selected - ie, what the selectors looked at to make the selection.

 

[Richard]

It's a step up in level though Richard, and thus requires more than just good first-class figures.

What is required to get good First-Class figures is also required to get good Test figures, because the domestic First-Class and Test games are the same thing, played with the same rules. Ergo, if your First-Class figures are poor your Test ones are going to be poor as well, barring something completely extraordinary.

Obviously not everyone who can succeed at domestic level will manage to at international, but domestic success > domestic failure. Always.

 

[NUFAN]

Is Richard auditioning for a role on Channel 9's commentary team?

 

[Richard]

Nah. Former players only, like so many other poor-policied TV\radio stations these days.

 

[Top_Cat]

Warne was a poor selection initially. From 1992/93 in NZ onwards he clearly wasn't a poor one.

And TBH I've never studied MacGill in intimate detail - his selection might've made perfect sense.

Was referring to McGrath.

Anyway, my question remains; what could possibly be gained by labelling any selection good or bad? What impact does it have on anything?

 

[Richard]

About the same impact as labelling a player's career, or part of it, good or bad. It has zero impact on anything; it's just interesting. To assess the calibre of selections is interesting, same as assessing the calibre of playing.

 

[Uppercut]

Actually I'm not, I'm very smart (and that's not arrogance, that's the way it is)

Oh dear..

 

[susudear]

Actually I'm not, I'm very smart (and that's not arrogance, that's the way it is),

Muah. I want to hav ur baby.

 

[Langeveldt]

Is Richard auditioning for a role on Channel 9's commentary team?

I think he fits the criteria

 

[Lillian Thomson]

You're an idiot, and I'm done with the argument.

If you'd copyrighted that statement in about October 2003 you'd be a very rich man.

 

[Matt79]

A long thread discussing the downfalls of the Channel 9 selectors is always a reliable sign that summer in Australia is underway.

 

[Son Of Coco]

It took Warne 9. It wasn't until the NZ tour of 1992/93 that he started to perform consistently. Before that he'd taken a second-innings 3-12 and a second-innings 7-not-that-many and had done absolutely nothing whatsoever besides and averaged 50.

Maybe, maybe they picked lucky. Either way, picking someone because you think you "see something that could be special" is a proven route to countless failures (even though you'll get the odd success thrown in there) and it's much better to wait until the player has a more convincing case. Warne and McGrath were both rather good so it's unlikely anyone'd have had to wait long.

I don't know about performing better when put under pressure, it's more a case of things which would cause some players to put themselves under pressure bring out the best in others.

It isn't. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how good a selection is. A bad selection can pay huge dividends in a player's first game (or first 7 games), and a good one can be completely unsuccessful initially.

A selection should be judged purely on what it had going for it before the player was selected - ie, what the selectors looked at to make the selection.

Well, Warne's 3/12 helped Australia get up by 16 runs and is recognised as a turning point where he started to show some potential. Didn't he also dismiss Richie Richardson in spectacular fashion vs the West Indies?

So you don't think selectors look at the mental capabilities of a player and whether they'll be able to step up to the next level as well as first class figures? If what you say is true about first class figures = test results then isn't it possible selectors saw something in Warne at A Grade level in Melbourne? (I don't think this is a good way of making a selection, but it fits the theme...) Let's not forget he'd also participated in some representative tours.

Given you have no idea what the selectors looked at before making the decision to play Warne and McGrath how are you qualified to comment on whether or not they were a good selection?