Do the England Selectors Have a Clue?

[BoyBrumby]

It must be said that often the selections are forced upon us by injury, illness or (in Tres's case) mental issues. The 4th test of the 2005 Ashes was probably the last time we were able to put out a first-choice XI.

The weight of numbers selected reflects a lack of depth in quality and the fact that our back-ups are much of a muchness. There has obviously been some wrong-headed thinking (I'm definitely of the opinion that test cricket shouldn't be used as training-ground as it has been in the case of Plunkett & Mahmood), but hopefully that was more a failing of the previous numero uno. Obviously we have the same chairman of selectors (many might ask why, in fairness) but the recalls of Sidebottom & now Swann show that Moores treats the county game with less disdain than Fletcher and also that it's as much his hand on the tiller as it was with the cheery Rhodesian.

It's harder to comment on limited overs stuff, really, because we've been that poo for that long any coach is going to be damned if he does (no consistency in selection, the players live in fear of being dropped) & damned if he doesn't (the same tired old failures, where's the new blood?).

 

[Richard]

In one part this can be directed at Bennett too:

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

Perfectly justifiable selection. In Pakistan, you expect to need spinners if you're England, because you expect Pakistan will put something in the pitches for spinners. It turned-out they didn't, and Udal, being a fingerspinner, had nothing to offer, as didn't his fellow Giles (who, last time he went there and the pitches were spin-friendly took a bagful). Not a bad selection though.

Blackwell

So far as ODIs are concerned, Blackwell was picked as a batsman on 3 out of the 4 occasions he was picked. This beggars belief so much it's untrue. He averaged low-20s in the one-day game and simply happened to have performed in a couple of televised games, while his First-Class average, due largely to games at Taunton, was ridiculously high for such a woeful batsman. His spin-bowling has been far more effective than it had any right to be, though, and this caused the thought that he might do well in India. He played one game on a completely dead surface and should never have done so.

Mahmood

One of the most awful picks, in either game-form, ever. Some ability with reverse-swing and fairly tall. None of which is any real use unless you can pitch the ball in the right areas, which Mahmood patently can't, and one look at his domestic record would tell you that.

Lewis

Not the most brilliant bowler, undoubtedly, but one of the better of a bad bunch. Bowled awfully on Test debut - picked because of the hope he'd swing it, I don't think he swung so much as 1 ball all game.

Prior

Should never have played ODIs, as either batsman or wicketkeeper, as he can't bat at all in the shorter game. In Tests was worth a go I suppose, but I've long had doubts over his technique despite his success, more than not at the small ground at home.

Tremlett

Rose Bowl bully IMO, but has actually bowled pretty well in 2 out of his 3 Tests. Worth another go.

Chapple

Almost a case of read Lewis - decent bowler, but no more than that. Except he hasn't played a Test. Lewis > Chapple, by about 2 points on a First-Class average, and both tending to be OK but not top-notch OD bowlers.

Dalrymple

Decent batsman, but totally unsuited to the role he's been given in more of his ODIs than not. A strike-rotator, not a biffer.

Joyce

Promising middle-order batsman... so he gets picked as an opener. Great.

Bresnan

Worst selection ever? It's a candidate.

Yardy

Terrible selection again. Decent long-form batsman, barely averages 20 in OD cricket. So what does he get picked for? You guessed it - ODIs.

Loye

Certainly worth a go in ODIs. Has had success as a strokeplaying opener, didn't at ODI level, partly due to the fact you don't mess around sweeping Glenn McGrath. Was definitely worth a go though, and if he was younger would have been worth another.

Wright

Picked basically on half a season. Terrible selection.

Mustard

Pretty much read-above.

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

As you can see, in more cases than not I agree. I don't think blaming selectors exclusively is the way to go, however, as it's certainly not unique to them. The trouble is the general mindset, worse than ever in this country but certainly not unique to it, of the failure to realise that:
a) one-day and four\five-day cricket are different, massively so
b) domestic and international cricket are not games played under different sets of rules. The rules are the same, the play is done in the same way, the only difference is the standard. Therefore, if someone can't hack domestic cricket, there's fat chance of him being able to hack international.
This is common amongst all. See that there was little outcry in even the worst cases (Bresnan and Mahmood) because the selections weren't thought to have been wrong at the time. Those in the commentary-box and behind the typewriter (nowadays that's a metaphor only) are every bit as wrong as those at the selection table. Selectors cannot be expected to be cut from a different cloth as the majority of the nation.

By-and-large, CW enjoys a higher calibre of cricket discussion than anywhere else I've encountered. If some of us on CW were in charge of cricket, it'd be a better game.

 

[aussie]

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.

I agree that selectors once they pick a player & give him that confidence that he could make it at the highest level should be persisited with & since Hussain & Fletcher were at the helm in 1999 i think England have done that especially with some of the players you have listed, but some at this stage have been exposed to not be up to scratch at this level .

But its not as if since the glorious 2005 summer all these selections even though its alot have been wild & random don't forget England have had alot of injury woes in the past 2 years & also the ODI as been the case up until now was always chop & change trying to find the best combination.

So for all these selections since 2005 had some merit IMO & the selectors have had some continuity with most excpet for Chapple & Loudon. I don't think its a case at all where the selections have lost it & are just picking players randomly then hoping for the best then dropping them if they fail.

 

[Richard]

In the cases of Bresnan and Mahmood, there was no logical reason - absolutely none - to pick them when they were picked.

They were nothing but completely random selections. You might as well have placed a list of names in front of you and stuck pins in the paper.

 

[Goughy]

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.

In the last 1 year (thats 1 year Only) England have used 28 players in ODIs. Especially when you consider there have been no real retirement of players that have had to been replaced like other teams have had.

That is the meaning of chopping and changing. It is impossible to build a unit when players have no idea whether they will be part of the set up for 1 week, 1 month or 1 year.

The team changes to often for their to be any unit built or continuity evolving.

Selectors must pick the players they think are best. To say everyone is the same standard and it doesnt matter who you pick is wrong. There are always players that will be more successful than others.

A selectors job is to use that knowledge to make a decision whether Broad, Tremlett, Sidebottom, Anderson, Mahmood, Lewis, Plunkett, Harmison or Hoggard are the best options.

Currently, the fashion is to throw as much **** at the wall and hope some sticks.

The vast majority of these selections have little chance of succeeding.

As for whether I follow English cricket. Yes but not as closely as I used to in terms of seeing games live. However, the interesting point is that what I am alluding to is actually a cultural issue and has surfaced its head throughout the years.

Its something I was critical of in the 90s as well.

Its not just something new.

 

[Matt79]

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.

Rich, sometimes I wonder whether you're taking reality-bending drugs or something. Of the players you named, Lewis is the only one who conceivably fits into your characterisation of stop gap. Hopes has clearly been the third cab off the rank as an allrounder and has played as much as he has due to the injury woes of Watson. That said, his recent performances make him very much look like he belongs.

White is in his early twenties, and in his age bracket there are only one or two batsmen who are comparable to him, particularly in limited overs cricket, in Australia. He's produced plenty of runs in that format in Australian and English domestic cricket. His bowling has declined sharply, and now he's out of the frame as an allrounder, but that was only just becoming apparent when he was first selected. He'll play more games for Australia, but as a batsman.

Johnson and Tait are the ones I really object to however - both definitely look like they belong and are likely to feature prominently in the Australian ODI AND Test set ups in the coming years. How you come to the conclusion that two quality bowlers in their mid-20s who have had promising results in their international cricket to date are being selected as stop-gaps who don't look to belong at that level is frankly astounding.

 

[sledger]

got to agree with pretty much all richard has said, esspecially about saj mahmood and tim bresnan.

But in fairness this isnt a recent problem, english selectors have picked terrible players for as long as i can remember...i'm sure aftab habib played a few tests....alex loudon has played ODI's....Alex Wharf is another name that springs to mind....Anthony Mcgrath (my god, shocking)....the list goes on and on...I could name plenty more if i thought about it...

 

[shortpitched713]

Of course not. But then again, clue is a relative term.

 

[wpdavid]

I guess there's a couple of problems with the initial question. Firstly, it needs separate answers for tests & odis. Secondly, it should really have separate answers for the Fletcher & Moores regimes. Even though Moores has only been in charge for 6 months, that's a fair chunk of the two year period under discussion. If that means I'm saying that Graveney is something of a figurehead, then so be it.

Anyway, at the risk of repeating much of what's already been said:

In tests - we all know that most of the new arrivals have been down to injuries. Two and a bit years ago, Fletcher probably intended that Ashes XI to be starting the 2009 series, unless a better spinner who could also bat at 8 came along. In response to the astonishing number of absences, most of the test selections have been reasonable. It's easy to moan now about Blackwell's one test and Udal, but none of us had a clue who should replace and/or partner Giles in Pakistan & India, and I don't recall many calls for Panesar 2 years ago. Especially given the widespread assumption that the spinner would have to bat at 8, which most folks went along with back then. As for Mahmood & Plunkett, they were probably no worse than Harmison when first picked, and, if we agree that trundlers need not apply for test cricket, then you can see why Fletcher hoped one or both of them might develop into something useful. I said at the time that Lewis was unlucky to be overlooked, but apart from that you're struggling to name anyone who obviously should have played. I certainly don't think Sidebottom got a mention at that stage. Yes, we all know that DF got it horribly wrong at the start of the Ashes, but that was down to uber-loyalty rather than the opposite. Post-Fletcher, Moores did the sensible thing in starting with bowlers inherited from his predecessor, correctly dumped Plunkett when it was clear that he couldn't hit a barn door with any regularity and then made some pretty wise choices for the rest of the summer given the absence of his entire first choice attack. It will actually get tougher for him now. As for the test batting, no-one could really say it's been inconsistent, and presumably Goughy wasn't.

ODIs are another matter altogether, of course, but that's already been said. Oddly enough, apart from the WC, this has been one of England's better years in the 50-over game, so perhaps a bit of credit should be given where due, but there's no arguing with the bigger picture.

 

[Salixiscool]

There not too bad with tests. But a lot of their one day selections are questionable. And Plunkett is definitely better than mahmood

 

[pup11]

Most of the England players especially bowlers have suffered from one injury or the another in the last 2 years and that has caused the selectors to virtually pick every bowler from the domestic circuit, as far as the batsmen and the wicket-keepers who were selected during that period are concerned, they were just not good enough to perform at the international level so the selectors kept on chopping and changing the side.
I am not defending the English selectors because they have given some very dire players a chance to play at the international level, but the amount of injuries that they have had to cope with didn't make it any easy for them.

 

[sledger]

tbh i thought Nixon did reasonably well considering the circumstances, he wasnt given many decent opportunities to show his true ability with the bta, often left with the tail and even then did ok most of the time.

 

[steds]

In one part this can be directed at Bennett too:

Perfectly justifiable selection. In Pakistan, you expect to need spinners if you're England, because you expect Pakistan will put something in the pitches for spinners. It turned-out they didn't, and Udal, being a fingerspinner, had nothing to offer, as didn't his fellow Giles (who, last time he went there and the pitches were spin-friendly took a bagful). Not a bad selection though.

Picking a spinner was justified, yes. Picking that spinner wasn't, imo. He was 36 years old and had never been good enough for England, so why one season averaging sub 20 at the tail end of his career would make him so, I have no idea. The fact is there were better options in Panesar, who was young enough to have an international future ahead of him, had taken more wickets than Udal in First Class cricket that summer and whose development would have benefited from an experience on subcontinental pitches - as it did when he got his go in India later that winter, and Keedy, who had proved in the previous two seasons that he was one of the best bowlers in county cricket even if his 2005 was marred by injury.

 

[sledger]

in fairness Udal had miles more experience than Panesar, which was probably quite an important factor, and i'm not just saying that because i am from Hampshire.

 

[Richard]

MSP had little case for that Pakistan series TBH, as shown by the fact that there was little outcry when he wasn't picked. He'd only been out of Uni 1 year, and that's rarely a recipe for international success (and funnily enough, he didn't bowl that well in India when he eventually did get picked).

TBF on Udal, it certainly wasn't just 2005 that caused him to be picked, it was 2004 too. Took 44 at 18.90 in 2005, 39 at 22.28 in 2004. And had also done well back in 1999 and 2000 too.

Keedy had been less impressive than this in 2003, 2004 and 2005 (the lattermost when, as you [Sean] say, he played little due to injury), taking his wickets only at mid-20s averages.

For me, Udal had the stronger case in 2005\06 than Keedy, and MSP had no case at all, as no-one who's played barely 1 season should EVER do.