Do the England Selectors Have a Clue?

[Goughy]

Please no one word answers

One primary role of a selector is to use your knowledge and experience to understand and appreciate who the best players are. Then just as important is to back your choices as to chop and change shows how little faith you have in your own decisions.

Since the end of the 2005 Summer (where English cricket was on a high and only 2 years ago) England have given DEBUTS in either Test or ODIs to 23 players.

So basically over and above everyone else who had ever played for England, up until the end of the 2005 season, players that could make up over 2 full teams have been given their England colours in one format or the other (T20 excluded).

Apart from devaluing the honour of playing for England (as it seems anyone at anytime can get a game whether earned or not) it leaves no continuity or room to develop a stable team.

Debuted in Both Tests and ODIs Since End 2005 Summer
Plunkett
Panesar
Cook

Debuted in Tests only Since End 2005 Summer
Udal
Blackwell
Shah
Mahmood
Lewis
Prior
Tremlett

Debuted in ODIs only Since End 2005 Summer
Chapple
Dalrymple
Joyce
Bresnan
Loudon
Broad
Yardy
Nixon
Loye
Bopara
Mascarenhas
Wright
Mustard


Firstly what is clear is that bowlers are more likely to be messed around or mis-evaluated and secondly they seem so suprised that an average County cricketer fails to be a quality International that they give another a go.

 

[Athlai]

Panesar
Cook
Prior
Broad
Nixon
Bopara
Mascarenhas

I think those that I have chosen were all relatively good choices, except for perhaps Prior but the English don't seem to have many better options, not bad with the bat though.

 

[Richard]

Where they've completely lost the plot is with the bowling, where they must have got through something approaching 20 quicks in 3 and a half years. Madness.

Sums it up for mine.

Kev and David both hit the nail on the head.

There's way too much chopping-and-changing. It beggars belief that Usman Afzaal has never played a ODI, and that the likes of Plunkett get picked when, even if you do believe they have potential, they've played 1-and-a-half seasons and done sod-all of note.

Equally, it beggars belief when you pick someone like Jamie Dalrymple, who's clearly no World-beater but has started well doing a certain job, then give him a role he's patently no use whatsoever at.

English ODI selection has left one hell of a lot to be desired for the last 7 years, best part of.

 

[vic_orthdox]

One primary role of a selector is to use your knowledge and experience to understand and appreciate who the best players are. Then just as important is to back your choices as to chop and change shows how little faith you have in your own decisions.

Exactly the point. There is a certain amount of responsibility in perservering with your choices. It gives a player confidence when he is picked that he's not suddenly playing for his international career when he's first picked and is feeling his way through the first game or two.

 

[stumpski]

Eighteen first-class teams, a lot of players of roughly similar standard, and some bad luck with injuries have combined to produce thos stats. Its hard to think of too many unbelievable selections, and though there have been a few surprises (Nixon, Udal) I for one am always - well, usually - happy to see a good experienced county pro get a chance. England play so much, and get so little time off, that it's just as well we use a lot of players.

 

[gettingbetter]

Do you guys really play more international cricket than other teams? I agree about having pro-longed trials with players selected. Just look at the number of English Test players have been caped compared to Australia - you give away caps like confetti.

 

[Goughy]

Eighteen first-class teams, a lot of players of roughly similar standard, and some bad luck with injuries have combined to produce thos stats. Its hard to think of too many unbelievable selections, and though there have been a few surprises (Nixon, Udal) I for one am always - well, usually - happy to see a good experienced county pro get a chance. England play so much, and get so little time off, that it's just as well we use a lot of players.

Whether they are unbelievable or not, they are selections that had little chance of success and the jumping around severely weakens the unit.

 

[Richard]

Neither Nixon and Udal - nor Loye - were selections devoid of merit. They all had something of a case.

The Plunketts, Mahmoods, Bresnans et al (could name 100s of similar stories) are those that bother me. Because "he's got potential" (highly debatable in most cases) that means we should pitch them into ODIs? Or because they've got good First-Class records and hugely average OD ones?

 

[silentstriker]

Do you guys really play more international cricket than other teams? I agree about having pro-longed trials with players selected. Just look at the number of English Test players have been caped compared to Australia - you give away caps like confetti.

But if Australia were in a tailspin like England were/are, I bet you'd see a lot of Australian players getting a shot too.


In any case, I agree with Goughy - you do need some continuity.

 

[gettingbetter]

Tailspin?

They are like women shopping, can't decide on anything and once they do, they return it. Even Australia at a stage were struggling with injuries - maybe not to the same extent England are, but it was noteable and I never had the inclination that they were 'testing' players.

 

[Richard]

Hopes, White (in the days when he was considered an all-rounder rather than a batsman who bowls a bit), Lewis, Johnson, Tait... need I go on... have all been players who've been tried as blatant stopgap measures rather than because they look like they belong. Some of these players may yet end-up becoming something, they may not. Nonetheless, none of them at the time of selection looked remotely convincing.

 

[gettingbetter]

I was focusing on Test matches - extensive use of players in ODi is part of the game.

When was the last time teams used a 'rotation' policy in Test matches? Other than South Africa, it would be preposterous if Australia or England, and possibly the other Test match playing nations to even suggest such a thing.

.......

And on the topic of ODIs, it is altogether another story. As you were saying, teams should look forward to the next WC and this is clearly evident in Australia with the dropping of Bevan, players like the names you mentioned were exposed as a trial rather than a stop-gap. And there has rarely been a merry-go-round; names escape me at the moment, but the likes of Lewis, Dorey possibly Harwood were trialed rather than picked to see if they were x factors in the lead up to the WC.

 

[Richard]

Kev's comments in this thread principally concern the shorter format. Note the debutants list in his opening post.

England's selectors have been admirably (or occasionally nauseautingly) consistent for the last 7 years or so.

 

[steds]

Neither Nixon and Udal - nor Loye - were selections devoid of merit. They all had something of a case.

DWTA re: Udal.

 

[gettingbetter]

Kev's comments in this thread principally concern the shorter format. Note the debutants list in his opening post.

England's selectors have been admirably (or occasionally nauseautingly) consistent for the last 7 years or so.

Also notes the Test reference. Either way, edit has been made and I'll be happy to look at the replies tomorow.

 

[Chubb]

Do you guys really play more international cricket than other teams? I agree about having pro-longed trials with players selected. Just look at the number of English Test players have been caped compared to Australia - you give away caps like confetti.

England play more games than anyone else, and have done so historically, because they play in the northern summer. The number of caps reflects this. Also, in the early years weaker teams were sent to South Africa or elsewhere to tour. In addition to that, in the early years of test cricket, with tests being played in different counties, the England XI would include players from the county hosting the test, largely to increase interest. That is why England have capped many more players than the other countries. Although a certain amount of poor selection policy has contributed to that, it is not the main factor in explaining why England "give away caps like confetti".

 

[open365]

Meh, we have crappy players. Rolling of a list of names without giving any context or direct alternatives doesn't prove.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not a massive fan of Duncan Graveny and the way the team has been picked over the last 4 years, but apart from a few marginal picks i don't think they can be accused of doing a lot wrong.

I don't believe chopping and changing has been a problem at all, Monty Panesar like it or not has not been worth his place in the side despite getting more than enough games, i don't think that's arguable.

And Goughy, how much English cricket do you acctualy watch or follow? I'm a pretty avid follower of the English domestic scene and the sad fact is that there just isn't the quality of players out there to pick from. The way some people talk would make you think we've got 2 teams full of excellent players that the selectors are just ignoring, this is not the case at all and i wish people would analyse selections in more detail and context instead of realing of a list of names and accusing the selectors of chopping and changing when they haven't been doing so.

 

[open365]

Exactly the point. There is a certain amount of responsibility in perservering with your choices. It gives a player confidence when he is picked that he's not suddenly playing for his international career when he's first picked and is feeling his way through the first game or two.

But that is not the case at all, players who have been picked and dropped like Bresnan and Dalrymple were never going to be good enough and were nothing more than short term selections forced by injuries to other players. People need to remember that the selectors aren't dropping KP and Freddy for these players, they're having to pick them or someone not much better because of injury.

 

[umop 3p!sdn]

Serious question here. Has Broad hit puberty?

In my opnion I think that England should stick with a similar squad for a few seasons, and maybe bring in the odd player or two and so on. Every time I turn the tele on England has a new keeper or new player, who everyone seems to be overating. I think players need time to adjust to international cricket. Imagine if when KP entered the international scene, and had played as poorly as he has or recent, he wouldn't have stood a chance, and that would just be wasted talent.

Where did they get these guys from

Udal
Blackwell
Mahmood
Lewis
Prior
Tremlett
Chapple
Dalrymple
Joyce
Bresnan
Yardy
Loye
Wright
Mustard

Wouldn't have any of the above in my squad.

 

[open365]

Again, reading out a list of names with no given context or alternatives is completely pointless and unfair as is saying "we should keep the same team for two years".

Times and situations change, saying players XY and Z should never have been picked without even thinking of the circumstances when they were and/or giving alternative selections is ridiculous.