Geraint Jones... a forgotten hero?

[Richard]

Richard, do you believe England should continue to try out wicket keepers until someone makes a reasonably convincing case to remain part of the team, or just keep playing one in the hope that he develops into a test-class wk?

All you can do is try someone and see if it works. If it doesn't, you move onto the next one. You must give everyone you try a fair go (and they didn't with Chris Read, not that I think doing so would have made any difference) but you cannot turn a poor player into a good one simply by picking him again and again.

However, poor-quality wicketkeepers like Prior ending-up in the team is not, to me, acceptable. I said it a while ago, but there are two conclusions - either the selectors didn't watch enough of Prior to know how poor his wicketkeeping was, or they did and knew how poor he was but picked him anyway. Geraint Jones initially was the same, frankly, though he got better and had his wicketkeeping been the way it was in 2005/06 and 2006 in 2004 I'd have thought he probably deserved the chance.

I don't have any truck with Read or Ambrose playing for England because their domestic records showed they merited a try and their wicketkeeping is clearly good and adaquete respectively. Having seen Read I don't think he'd ever have made a Test-class batsman of note, Ambrose I still hold some hope for but am beginning to run-out of it.

If Ambrose doesn't do well in the next Test I think his time's up and I think Foster probably deserves to be the next one given a go. Ambrose has been given a run and for mine it's enough of one.

Foster then needs to be given at least this winter and if he's not done well enough then you try the next one. If Steven Davies starts 2009 in stellar form, maybe it's his turn. We can only hope he can translate domestic to international the way Read and, so far, Ambrose have not been able to.

If Davies starts poorly, maybe turn to Niall O'Brien (if eligable), Ben Scott, Stephen Snell or whoever else's form merits it.

 

[Uppercut]

All you can do is try someone and see if it works. If it doesn't, you move onto the next one. You must give everyone you try a fair go (and they didn't with Chris Read, not that I think doing so would have made any difference) but you cannot turn a poor player into a good one simply by picking him again and again.

However, poor-quality wicketkeepers like Prior ending-up in the team is not, to me, acceptable. I said it a while ago, but there are two conclusions - either the selectors didn't watch enough of Prior to know how poor his wicketkeeping was, or they did and knew how poor he was but picked him anyway. Geraint Jones initially was the same, frankly, though he got better and had his wicketkeeping been the way it was in 2005/06 and 2006 in 2004 I'd have thought he probably deserved the chance.

I don't have any truck with Read or Ambrose playing for England because their domestic records showed they merited a try and their wicketkeeping is clearly good and adaquete respectively. Having seen Read I don't think he'd ever have made a Test-class batsman of note, Ambrose I still hold some hope for but am beginning to run-out of it.

If Ambrose doesn't do well in the next Test I think his time's up and I think Foster probably deserves to be the next one given a go. Ambrose has been given a run and for mine it's enough of one.

Foster then needs to be given at least this winter and if he's not done well enough then you try the next one. If Steven Davies starts 2009 in stellar form, maybe it's his turn. We can only hope he can translate domestic to international the way Read and, so far, Ambrose have not been able to.

If Davies starts poorly, maybe turn to Niall O'Brien (if eligable), Ben Scott, Stephen Snell or whoever else's form merits it.

Oh dear, you couldn't steal O'Brien too, could you?

I can't comment on who does and who doesn't merit a chance, because i don't see enough county cricket. I would say though, given the sheer quantity of keepers tried already, that at some point they might have to accept that no keeper in England is of the standard they want and stick to a particular player (they may already be doing so with Ambrose, in fact). Can't really see him becoming a top-class keeper-batsman tbh, but maybe there just isn't one.

 

[Richard]

I don't feel there is anything to be lost in trying a new player when one fails. If the next one simply fails as badly, you've made no risk for the chance of gain. There might well be no-one available who is good enough, but you don't know if you don't try. You cannot accept mediocrity, for multiple reasons.

And yes, Niall O'Brien, like James Foster, is impressive. And as we both acknowledged a little while ago, really good Irish players playing for England is probably a reality all need to accept. It's just a shame if the possibility of a united front between the two countries is zero.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't feel there is anything to be lost in trying a new player when one fails. If the next one simply fails as badly, you've made no risk for the chance of gain.

And yes, Niall O'Brien, like James Foster, is impressive. And as we both acknowledged a little while ago, really good Irish players playing for England is probably a reality all need to accept. It's just a shame if the possibility of a united front between the two countries is zero.

Aye, i don't begrudge the players for wanting to play at the highest level. I'd do exactly the same, only a fool would think differently. But i'd still be upset if, as your timing stipulated, he ditched the team just in time for the T20 world cup. It's the only chance we get to piss off a few obsessive Indians and help out the effigy salesmen.

 

[Top_Cat]

I don't feel there is anything to be lost in trying a new player when one fails. If the next one simply fails as badly, you've made no risk for the chance of gain. There might well be no-one available who is good enough, but you don't know if you don't try. You cannot accept mediocrity, for multiple reasons.

While I don't disagree that you shouldn't accept mediocrity, I disagree you should just work your way through the country's 'keepers. Chopping and changing the team constantly is de-stabilising and I notice England generally goes through a lull after each 'keeper change. You can't just drop a bloke if he has a poor couple of games with the gloves.

Plus, you can train 'keepers. Ian Healy was far from the best 'keeper in Australia when he was picked for his first Test (there was a better 'keeper in his own state, some would argue....) yet look where he ended up? Gilchrist, same; both developed into excellent 'keepers. Some of that was due to being consistently picked, even through Healy's initially mediocre period with both bat and gloves (wasn't a world-class 'keeper for probably the first 5 years of his Test career)

Anyone with the right attitude and some ability can be trained. You only have to look at some of the somewhat miraculous turn-arounds by some players to completely change their roles in the team. Well no, it wasn't miraculous but tons of hard work. Pick the right group of personalities and you build a strong team and good basis for that team to improve its skills. This is what England are missing I reckon.

I do see some positives in the Test side for the next match, though. Although I strongly disagree with Flintoff batting so high, I absolutely think Bell should live or die in the team at 3 and picking him to bat there is a gutsy move. Sticking with Ambrose gives the right message too. Batting him at 6 did not......

 

[Richard]

While I don't disagree that you shouldn't accept mediocrity, I disagree you should just work your way through the country's 'keepers.

Trouble is, it's one or the other. There's no middle ground. If you keep picking someone who's performing poorly without trying someone else, you're accepting mediocrity. Obviously, you want to give someone a fair run, but a fair run for mine is 10 games or so, not 30.

Chopping and changing the team constantly is de-stabilising and I notice England generally goes through a lull after each 'keeper change.

TBH, England has gone through a lull after not changing the wicketkeeper plenty of times too. I don't think you can really attribute much to that.

You can't just drop a bloke if he has a poor couple of games with the gloves.

No, absolutely - but a poor 10 or 11? Hell yes.

Plus, you can train 'keepers. Ian Healy was far from the best 'keeper in Australia when he was picked for his first Test (there was a better 'keeper in his own state, some would argue....) yet look where he ended up? Gilchrist, same; both developed into excellent 'keepers. Some of that was due to being consistently picked, even through Healy's initially mediocre period with both bat and gloves (wasn't a world-class 'keeper for probably the first 5 years of his Test career)

Anyone with the right attitude and some ability can be trained. You only have to look at some of the somewhat miraculous turn-arounds by some players to completely change their roles in the team. Well no, it wasn't miraculous but tons of hard work. Pick the right group of personalities and you build a strong team and good basis for that team to improve its skills. This is what England are missing I reckon.

I don't disagree with this. The problem isn't Ambrose's wicketkeeping, that's adaquete. Geraint Jones is another example of a wicketkeeper who was very poor but turned into a pretty damn decent one in not all that long. The trouble with both of these two is their batting - Jones never was and Ambrose I'm beginning to wonder if he is good enough. There's a limit to what anyone can achieve and I wonder if they've both already reached theirs. Jones probably got more chances than he deserved and I think Ambrose has just about had enough by now. It's make-or-break at The Oval for mine.

BTW, quite astonished to hear Healy was a genuinely poor wicketkeeper early in his Test career. He was a poor batsman - sure, I knew that. Was only on the 1993 Ashes tour, a full 5 years after his debut, that he started to score Test runs (and he did that damn well for the next 5 years). But I'd thought he was always a good wicketkeeper.

 

[Top_Cat]

Trouble is, it's one or the other. There's no middle ground. If you keep picking someone who's performing poorly without trying someone else, you're accepting mediocrity. Obviously, you want to give someone a fair run, but a fair run for mine is 10 games or so, not 30.

TBH, England has gone through a lull after not changing the wicketkeeper plenty of times too. I don't think you can really attribute much to that.

No, absolutely - but a poor 10 or 11? Hell yes.

I don't disagree with this. The problem isn't Ambrose's wicketkeeping, that's adaquete. Geraint Jones is another example of a wicketkeeper who was very poor but turned into a pretty damn decent one in not all that long. The trouble with both of these two is their batting - Jones never was and Ambrose I'm beginning to wonder if he is good enough. There's a limit to what anyone can achieve and I wonder if they've both already reached theirs. Jones probably got more chances than he deserved and I think Ambrose has just about had enough by now. It's make-or-break at The Oval for mine.

Fair enough regarding the above. Foster has to come into calculations sometime I guess. Wonder which one of the selector's cats he ran over to not get get another chance by now, to be honest.

BTW, quite astonished to hear Healy was a genuinely poor wicketkeeper early in his Test career. He was a poor batsman - sure, I knew that. Was only on the 1993 Ashes tour, a full 5 years after his debut, that he started to score Test runs (and he did that damn well for the next 5 years). But I'd thought he was always a good wicketkeeper.

Shelled a few sitters in his first couple of Tests. Tim Zoerher was considered the far better 'keeper (definitely the better batsman) and I do remember a bit of an uproar when Heals was selected over Peter Anderson for QLD. And certain persons from NSW considered Phil Emery to be the better 'keeper even when Healy retired. Believe Darren Berry was often rated more highly. Tim Nielson from SA...... not so much.

One thing is for certain; Zoerher was the better bowler. Towards the end of his career, used to take off the gloves and bowl leg-spin for WA and took wickets. I saw him bowl a few times and I gotta admit, he had talent. Could rip the ball miles and bowled a great wrong'un. I do remember before Warne came along that Zoehrer was being semi-seriously looked at for a return to the Test side as the world's first wicket-keeper/bowler. His personality probably put paid to that, though. As one of the 5 people in the universe who own his autobiography, I can testify to that (leave me alone, it was in the $2 bin....).

 

[tooextracool]

Chopping and changing the team constantly is de-stabilising and I notice England generally goes through a lull after each 'keeper change. You can't just drop a bloke if he has a poor couple of games with the gloves.

Whilst, not giving players enough chances can be criminal, I think the theory floating around that the introduction of new players such as Pattinson had a negative effect on the team spirit is questionable to say the very least. Im sorry, but the England players get paid enough money and being amongst the top 11 players in the country should be enough motivation to keep anyone's spirits high and should result in the players still producing their best performances. If players need their best mates in the change room or on the field in order to produce their best performances, then they should go play for Lancashire or Hampshire not for the national side. Not saying that you are recommending it, but chopping and changing is part of what happens when you play for the national side and the fact that England set unprecedented records by keeping an unchanged side for the small matter of 6 tests should tell you that all teams have been changing their sides for donkey's years.

 

[tooextracool]

Plus, you can train 'keepers. Ian Healy was far from the best 'keeper in Australia when he was picked for his first Test (there was a better 'keeper in his own state, some would argue....) yet look where he ended up? Gilchrist, same; both developed into excellent 'keepers. Some of that was due to being consistently picked, even through Healy's initially mediocre period with both bat and gloves (wasn't a world-class 'keeper for probably the first 5 years of his Test career)

I agree with this. It is probably easier for a wicket keeper to go from being poor to serviceable than for a batsman to do the same. But that begs the question, does that mean that Prior should be part of the test side? I certainly dont think he should have been dropped tbh.

 

[Top_Cat]

Whilst, not giving players enough chances can be criminal, I think the theory floating around that the introduction of new players such as Pattinson had a negative effect on the team spirit is questionable to say the very least. Im sorry, but the England players get paid enough money and being amongst the top 11 players in the country should be enough motivation to keep anyone's spirits high and should result in the players still producing their best performances. If players need their best mates in the change room or on the field in order to produce their best performances, then they should go play for Lancashire or Hampshire not for the national side. Not saying that you are recommending it, but chopping and changing is part of what happens when you play for the national side and the fact that England set unprecedented records by keeping an unchanged side for the small matter of 6 tests should tell you that all teams have been changing their sides for donkey's years.

Depends on the reasons, though. Even professional athletes, team issues which seem so amateurish do matter. It's not about not wanting to do your best either or just making everyone feel good, it's things like knowing your team-mates are going to do their job and working together. Team psychology is crucial in multi-billion dollar companies and many live and die by communication, leadership and teamwork (or lack of) so it stands to reason that in a team of only 11 players, they'll be no different. No matter how well highly-paid or professional, organisational and social psychology affects whether a team does well and just having a beer with your mates is only part of it. When I say 'team' I mean things like adequate communication between team and support staff or management being transparent about their decisions, setting up adequate communication between players so that bad stuff doesn't get out of hand.

At our core, like it or not, we're social creatures. We're affected by what's happening around us and to whom. Pattinson getting selected would most certainly have affected morale and trust in a team and amongst other bowlers around the country. Lack of communication and teamwork causes, for example, hesitation. Hesitation affects decision-making speed and efficacy so instead of just knowing your batting partner is going to make that quick single, you're not sure and you might run him out. Or if you're not sure whether your team-mate is up to the level of the team, you might feel additional pressure on yourself to take wickets as a bowler and instead of worrying about things like your line-and-length, you're too busy thinking about the plonker at fine-leg who can't bowl for crap. Then he gets spanked, and your emotional response might impact on your motivation. Or if you don't trust your captain and he makes a joke about how crap you bowl, you'll doubt he was joking and this might breed resentment, even at a professional level. There's really no way of getting around it. Hell, social psychology dictates whether large groups of people will turn around a kill others and it's not about intelligence either.

In an ideal world, people should be able to block all that out and be professional, etc. Just about no-one can, though. Emotions, motivation, trust, etc. all of them play their role whether you're a park cricketer or a Test cricketer and I would argue it's even more crucial at the highest level where, playing against the best, the difference in raw physical talent is far less great than at lower levels so who wins or loses comes down to team issues. Emotions and your response to others' emotions as well as your perception of how others deal with yours all play their part.

Want to know how crucial decision-making is and how it can so easily be affected? Check out The Bystander Effect and how Kitty Genovese's death was a direct result of lack of communication, diffusion of responsibility and lack of any idea of who could do anything to help her despite 30-dd people watching her be murdered. Social psychology is crucial to any team environment and professionalism is about allowing for that, not telling everyone they shouldn't be emotional and should be able to shut it all out. Because no-one can.

Want to know how influential social norms are? Try breaking some. Then see the effects on peoples' attitudes towards you. They're very important and very hard to contradict and the consequences can be very far-reaching.

I agree with this. It is probably easier for a wicket keeper to go from being poor to serviceable than for a batsman to do the same. But that begs the question, does that mean that Prior should be part of the test side? I certainly dont think he should have been dropped tbh.

I personally think England does go through 'keepers with alarming regularity.

 

[Richard]

Depends on the reasons, though. Even professional athletes, team issues which seem so amateurish do matter. It's not about not wanting to do your best either or just making everyone feel good, it's things like knowing your team-mates are going to do their job and working together. Team psychology is crucial in multi-billion dollar companies and many live and die by communication, leadership and teamwork (or lack of) so it stands to reason that in a team of only 11 players, they'll be no different. No matter how well highly-paid or professional, organisational and social psychology affects whether a team does well and just having a beer with your mates is only part of it. When I say 'team' I mean things like adequate communication between team and support staff or management being transparent about their decisions, setting up adequate communication between players so that bad stuff doesn't get out of hand.

At our core, like it or not, we're social creatures. We're affected by what's happening around us and to whom. Pattinson getting selected would most certainly have affected morale and trust in a team and amongst other bowlers around the country. Lack of communication and teamwork causes, for example, hesitation. Hesitation affects decision-making speed and efficacy so instead of just knowing your batting partner is going to make that quick single, you're not sure and you might run him out. Or if you're not sure whether your team-mate is up to the level of the team, you might feel additional pressure on yourself to take wickets as a bowler and instead of worrying about things like your line-and-length, you're too busy thinking about the plonker at fine-leg who can't bowl for crap. Then he gets spanked, and your emotional response might impact on your motivation. Or if you don't trust your captain and he makes a joke about how crap you bowl, you'll doubt he was joking and this might breed resentment, even at a professional level. There's really no way of getting around it. Hell, social psychology dictates whether large groups of people will turn around a kill others and it's not about intelligence either.

In an ideal world, people should be able to block all that out and be professional, etc. Just about no-one can, though. Emotions, motivation, trust, etc. all of them play their role whether you're a park cricketer or a Test cricketer and I would argue it's even more crucial at the highest level where, playing against the best, the difference in raw physical talent is far less great than at lower levels so who wins or loses comes down to team issues. Emotions and your response to others' emotions as well as your perception of how others deal with yours all play their part.

Want to know how crucial decision-making is and how it can so easily be affected? Check out The Bystander Effect and how Kitty Genovese's death was a direct result of lack of communication, diffusion of responsibility and lack of any idea of who could do anything to help her despite 30-dd people watching her be murdered. Social psychology is crucial to any team environment and professionalism is about allowing for that, not telling everyone they shouldn't be emotional and should be able to shut it all out. Because no-one can.

Want to know how influential social norms are? Try breaking some. Then see the effects on peoples' attitudes towards you. They're very important and very hard to contradict and the consequences can be very far-reaching.

I've thought some of that before now, but nonetheless, great stuff. Really thought-provoking.

 

[zaremba]

BTW, quite astonished to hear Healy was a genuinely poor wicketkeeper early in his Test career. He was a poor batsman - sure, I knew that. Was only on the 1993 Ashes tour, a full 5 years after his debut, that he started to score Test runs (and he did that damn well for the next 5 years). But I'd thought he was always a good wicketkeeper.

He was poor with the gloves in England in 1989. IIRC he was picked, more than anything else, on the basis of character.

The point that's being made that keepers can be trained is an accurate one. Alec Stewart is another example to add to the list. He wasn't a particularly good keeper (and first played Test cricket as a specialist batsman) but became a perfectly decent one.

 

[tooextracool]

Depends on the reasons, though. Even professional athletes, team issues which seem so amateurish do matter. It's not about not wanting to do your best either or just making everyone feel good, it's things like knowing your team-mates are going to do their job and working together. Team psychology is crucial in multi-billion dollar companies and many live and die by communication, leadership and teamwork (or lack of) so it stands to reason that in a team of only 11 players, they'll be no different. No matter how well highly-paid or professional, organisational and social psychology affects whether a team does well and just having a beer with your mates is only part of it. When I say 'team' I mean things like adequate communication between team and support staff or management being transparent about their decisions, setting up adequate communication between players so that bad stuff doesn't get out of hand.

At our core, like it or not, we're social creatures. We're affected by what's happening around us and to whom. Pattinson getting selected would most certainly have affected morale and trust in a team and amongst other bowlers around the country. Lack of communication and teamwork causes, for example, hesitation. Hesitation affects decision-making speed and efficacy so instead of just knowing your batting partner is going to make that quick single, you're not sure and you might run him out. Or if you're not sure whether your team-mate is up to the level of the team, you might feel additional pressure on yourself to take wickets as a bowler and instead of worrying about things like your line-and-length, you're too busy thinking about the plonker at fine-leg who can't bowl for crap. Then he gets spanked, and your emotional response might impact on your motivation. Or if you don't trust your captain and he makes a joke about how crap you bowl, you'll doubt he was joking and this might breed resentment, even at a professional level. There's really no way of getting around it. Hell, social psychology dictates whether large groups of people will turn around a kill others and it's not about intelligence either.

In an ideal world, people should be able to block all that out and be professional, etc. Just about no-one can, though. Emotions, motivation, trust, etc. all of them play their role whether you're a park cricketer or a Test cricketer and I would argue it's even more crucial at the highest level where, playing against the best, the difference in raw physical talent is far less great than at lower levels so who wins or loses comes down to team issues. Emotions and your response to others' emotions as well as your perception of how others deal with yours all play their part.

Want to know how crucial decision-making is and how it can so easily be affected? Check out The Bystander Effect and how Kitty Genovese's death was a direct result of lack of communication, diffusion of responsibility and lack of any idea of who could do anything to help her despite 30-dd people watching her be murdered. Social psychology is crucial to any team environment and professionalism is about allowing for that, not telling everyone they shouldn't be emotional and should be able to shut it all out. Because no-one can.

Want to know how influential social norms are? Try breaking some. Then see the effects on peoples' attitudes towards you. They're very important and very hard to contradict and the consequences can be very far-reaching.

Cant disagree with most of what you have said as as it is mostly true. However, test match cricket (or cricket in general) involves playing with different players, young and old, friends and enemies, black or white. At the end of the day, I dont think saying something like "Pattinson's selection had a negative impact on the side because no one had heard of him in the past" conveys the right message to Pattinson or to anyone else outside of the side. No, such a comment only seems to suggest that the England players strongly dislike anyone that is outside of their own cozy little comfort zone with their mates and sends a negative message to any up and coming youngster with little county experience that their presence in the England side would somehow result in serious underperformance of the team as a whole. The bottom line is that the selectors thought he was good enough and that is all that matters and the players should get over it.

You used the example of team psychology and multi-billion dollar companies, but these companies also have zillions of new employees every day, and they have unheard off CEO's from completely unrelated industries taking over the firm. Robert Nardelli, CEO of Chrysler, for example, was chosen to lead the company after serving as CEO of Home Depot despite the 2 industries (automobile and home improvement) having no connection between them. What kind of message this sends to the rest of the management team or even to the employees lower down the chain is largely irrelevant because the bottom line is that as an employee in a fortune 500 company, part of your job involves expecting unexpected decisions from your shareholders, and as a cricketer part of your job involves to expect unexpected selections. I agree with you that psychology is important and that ensuring that everything is done to keep team morale at the highest possible is ideal, however, the reality, that is test cricket is that you cannot put 'team psychology' above the overall quality of the players in the team. Therefore, players have to get over the fact that their best mates will be dropped, that selectors will make decisions that they might not agree with, and that they cant forever have the most charismatic or the most taslismanic of players standing by their side every game. If the selection of someone like Pattinson or the dropping of Ambrose has such a negative influence on players in the side that it is able to seriously affect a result, then one has to question the mental fortitude or temperament of those in the side to begin with, because there are far far more gut wrenching things in test cricket(like being hit on the head) that would have an even greater impact on your game. Nor in anyway does it make sense to select a crap player, simply because he lifts the team morale as Geraint Jones was constantly selected for his ability to do so in 05-06.

 

[Top_Cat]

Cant disagree with most of what you have said as as it is mostly true. However, test match cricket (or cricket in general) involves playing with different players, young and old, friends and enemies, black or white. At the end of the day, I dont think saying something like "Pattinson's selection had a negative impact on the side because no one had heard of him in the past" conveys the right message to Pattinson or to anyone else outside of the side. No, such a comment only seems to suggest that the England players strongly dislike anyone that is outside of their own cozy little comfort zone with their mates and sends a negative message to any up and coming youngster with little county experience that their presence in the England side would somehow result in serious underperformance of the team as a whole. The bottom line is that the selectors thought he was good enough and that is all that matters and the players should get over it.

Well, the truth is you're right, really. And certainly, most of the time, players are used to what you're saying and, as you said, minor cliques within sides are destructive to the team dynamic. I view team psychology as more than merely the players getting along and, in fact, breaking up those cliques is part of it. And, I might add, even though Harmison was over-looked for Pattinson, he's come back strong, hasn't he? So I guess he's over it too. Better yet, Pattinson was defended by many players within the team set-up so, they got over it too. And, England are doing well in the current Test. That I believe is as much a function of good communication between coaches, administrators and players and wanting to give him a go.

That said, his being dropped immediately after the Test would have done a lot to support the "He was a mistake, let's more on". The right message was sent eventually and his selction could be put into the 'hourses for courses' box by the rest of the players. So they could move on. If he'd been selected again or in the current side, well, I believe we'd be hearing more rumblings of discontent from players and pundits alike. Obviously I'm not in the set-up so I can't comment with authority on what actually happened, though.

Nor in anyway does it make sense to select a crap player, simply because he lifts the team morale as Geraint Jones was constantly selected for his ability to do so in 05-06.

The issue of Jones was a bit different to that, I reckon. He was one of Freddie's favourites, sure, but I think everyone thought his batting would come good because his glovework did improve over time (even slightly). When it didn't, the reason to pick him (his batting) evaporated and he was dropped.

I just strongly suspect team psychology played its part in England under-performance following the 2005 Ashes series. I mean, have a look at the side; with the batting you have Strauss, Cook, Pietersen, Vaughan and Bell. All very talented players and pretty mentally-strong too, as they proved during that series (Bell was a little over-whelmed by the occasion but he's a very talented player). It baffles that they've under-achieved so I put it down to team factors. A guess, given, but it's not for lack of talent that they've under-achieved. Vaughan has his technical issues but they've always been there. Why is he not scoring runs now?

Virtually the same team managed to beat Australia, a team full of talented players who were also a very tight team and even when getting beaten, were almost as tight and fighting to the end. The Aussies also didn't play that badly; I know the batting numbers were down and one or two of the bowlers got spanked but really, Australia didn't lose that series, they were beaten. It wasn't just raw ability that got England there either, it was the superior 'team'. Where has that gone?

I also agree that you shouldn't keep picking a popular bloke if he's under-performing. The benefits his personality might bring are under-cut by his failures to contribute to the business-end of the game i.e. scoring runs and taking wickets. That's a tough balance to get right.

 

[Goughy]

I dont think saying something like "Pattinson's selection had a negative impact on the side because no one had heard of him in the past" conveys the right message to Pattinson or to anyone else outside of the side. No, such a comment only seems to suggest that the England players strongly dislike anyone that is outside of their own cozy little comfort zone with their mates and sends a negative message to any up and coming youngster with little county experience that their presence in the England side would somehow result in serious underperformance of the team as a whole. The bottom line is that the selectors thought he was good enough and that is all that matters and the players should get over it.

I think the point with Pattinson is that it upset the players as it devalued their accomplishments. Their England careers mean the most to them and suddenly what they hold most dear is completely devalued.

Imagine working a job for 10 years and being proud of it and then a guy you believe is completely underqualified is employed to do the same job you with little experience. Suddenly you are not so proud of your job anymore.

I imagine there are cliques withing the England team, but the Pattinson affair is far more than that.

County cricket is a community and you pay your dues and earn your selection up and down the motorways of England (and Wales). Pattinson didnt do any of that and I think all England players had a right to feel agreived (sp?)

 

[tooextracool]

I think the point with Pattinson is that it upset the players as it devalued their accomplishments. Their England careers mean the most to them and suddenly what they hold most dear is completely devalued.

Imagine working a job for 10 years and being proud of it and then a guy you believe is completely underqualified is employed to do the same job you with little experience. Suddenly you are not so proud of your job anymore.

I imagine there are cliques withing the England team, but the Pattinson affair is far more than that.

County cricket is a community and you pay your dues and earn your selection up and down the motorways of England (and Wales). Pattinson didnt do any of that and I think all England players had a right to feel agreived (sp?)

Yeah, I can definetly understand the bemusement of players outside the team, I can even see how that is likely to be morally detrimental. Although, tbf this sort of thing happens all the time even in large companies, where the boss' son/family member is always the one that gets the big promotion, usually undeservedly. If anything I would think it should motivate those on the outside of the team who had put in the hard yards to try harder to get closer to the side, especially since Pattinson was supposed to be a 'horses for courses' selection. Injustice is merely a part of life, and while I can understand that players on the outskirts of the team have a right to be agrieved, I do not think that it should be considered career ending or result in underperformance but I can certainly see their pov if that was the case.

However, I simply have no sympathy for those in the England side who claim that Pattinson's selection resulted in lowering their morale and resulted in underperformance because it's something they should be expected to be able to put at the very back of their minds when they play for England. Players like Wasim Akram and Steve Waugh were picked from obscurity and certainly did not pay their dues but you rarely saw the likes of Javed Miandad or Geoff Marsh bitch and moan about them not paying their dues and getting the easy ride to International cricket.

 

[tooextracool]

I just strongly suspect team psychology played its part in England under-performance following the 2005 Ashes series. I mean, have a look at the side; with the batting you have Strauss, Cook, Pietersen, Vaughan and Bell. All very talented players and pretty mentally-strong too, as they proved during that series (Bell was a little over-whelmed by the occasion but he's a very talented player). It baffles that they've under-achieved so I put it down to team factors. A guess, given, but it's not for lack of talent that they've under-achieved. Vaughan has his technical issues but they've always been there. Why is he not scoring runs now?

Virtually the same team managed to beat Australia, a team full of talented players who were also a very tight team and even when getting beaten, were almost as tight and fighting to the end. The Aussies also didn't play that badly; I know the batting numbers were down and one or two of the bowlers got spanked but really, Australia didn't lose that series, they were beaten. It wasn't just raw ability that got England there either, it was the superior 'team'. Where has that gone?

The thing is, Vaughan was under-achieving all the way back in the 2005 Ashes as well. There was plenty of criticism around for his masterful ability of making Lee's 90 mph straight balls look like snakes on a plane and even during his 160 odd at OT he lived a charmed existence at the crease.
Do you really put England's under-achievement post Ashes 2005 down due to inferior 'team psychology'? Personally, I've though that injuries to the likes of Jones, Flintoff and Trescothick who were essentially 3 out of 4 of the players who almost singlehandedly brought the Ashes back to England hurt them more than anything and the fact that Harmison progressively got worse didnt help either. To an extent, I do agree with you that the England batting has been underperforming because the likes of Bell, Pietersen, Vaughan, Collingwood and Flintoff (with the bat) should have accomplished far more than they have during their career span given their potential, but I simply dont think the England batting was very good in the Ashes in 2005 and I dont think any of them have gone 'downhill' or achieved any less since then. My last comment on the Ashes 2005 matter is that Jones and Flintoff essentially won the Ashes, while Pietersen and Tresco saved them (and you could make the case to include Vaughan's captaincy in this category). However, the rest of them were mere footnotes that made the odd contribution but certainly dont deserve to be credited with much more.

 

[Goughy]

However, I simply have no sympathy for those in the England side who claim that Pattinson's selection resulted in lowering their morale and resulted in underperformance because it's something they should be expected to be able to put at the very back of their minds when they play for England. Players like Wasim Akram and Steve Waugh were picked from obscurity and certainly did not pay their dues but you rarely saw the likes of Javed Miandad or Geoff Marsh bitch and moan about them not paying their dues and getting the easy ride to International cricket.

Completely different. Firstly it is a different system but most importantly Waugh and Wasim were young. They were not a 30 year old nobody that didnt even live in the country he was representing.

A Pattinson style selection hurts the internal workings of a team. From being the pinicale of the profession, an England cap suddenly is thrown around to people long term teammembers have never met. Really damages the cohesiveness of the unit.

As for injustice and the business comparision. Firstly, that shouldnt happen in business either and even if it does then there is private finance involved and people can favour who they want with their own money.

I am not brought up to believe any type of favouritism is acceptable without complete transparancy.

 

[Precambrian]

At the highest level, you are expected to be a professional and not to wimp about how other appointments are made. You are just expected to go out and do your job. That's what differentiate the top dogs from the rest.

 

[Top_Cat]

At the highest level, you are expected to be a professional and not to wimp about how other appointments are made. You are just expected to go out and do your job. That's what differentiate the top dogs from the rest.

As has been pointed out though, what's expected and what goes on are different things. They're not robots, they're still people with emotions and are subject to all the usual social psychology, emotional reactions under stress, etc. Far more pressured environments than professional sports still have stuff occur which people all say shouldn't, but does.

Say it all you want but as long as were talking about people, there will be emotions involved and no amount of berating them for not being professional enough will change that.