Selection errors tally thread

[Uppercut]

Now after doing all that, if you're not even entitled to have a few failures without losing your place in the side then something is clearly wrong with the way the selectors and team-management are thinking.

This is where we disagree. I think something would seriously be wrong if, in the middle of the Ashes, selectors were thinking anything other than "how are we going to win this series?" Once you've concluded that the only thing that matters is the success of the team, whether it's "fair" to drop someone or whether they're "entitled to" their place in the team becomes irrelevant. You pick the player you think will give you the best chance of winning. Personally, i thought that player was Watson by a whisker, and he's done well to justify that belief.

If selectors were thinking "Watson's more likely to score runs, but we'll pick Hughes anyway because he's entitled to a few failures", that's when I think the selectors would have something clearly wrong in their thought process.

If you, like plenty of others, thought Hughes was more likely to add something to the team than Watson, that's fine- it's just a small disagreement on a borderline call.

 

[slippyslip]

This is where we disagree. I think something would seriously be wrong if, in the middle of the Ashes, selectors were thinking anything other than "how are we going to win this series?" Once you've concluded that the only thing that matters is the success of the team, whether it's "fair" to drop someone or whether they're "entitled to" their place in the team becomes irrelevant. You pick the player you think will give you the best chance of winning. Personally, i thought that player was Watson by a whisker, and he's done well to justify that belief.

If selectors were thinking "Watson's more likely to score runs, but we'll pick Hughes anyway because he's entitled to a few failures", that's when I think the selectors would have something clearly wrong in their thought process.

If you, like plenty of others, thought Hughes was more likely to add something to the team than Watson, that's fine- it's just a small disagreement on a borderline call.

Glad someone else around here agrees.

Cricket is now a professional sport. This days of playing someone, even though there is someone in the squad who will do better, because that player is entitled to a spot is long gone. That might have been the right way back in the days when long term players had to give up working at a job and make sacrifices to play, but not anymore. Sometimes cricket has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21 century. Theres a reason cricket is regarded as one of the most conservative sports in the world.

The 11 players that will give the team the best chance of winning should always be picked regardless.

 

[aussie]

He was almost in his mid-30's by then! In his 20's, was as good against pace as anyone (ironically, when he was carrying a lot more weight). Not as good against pace as someone like Ponting but he was no mug.

Ha, well this is probably post PAK 98. Because when in first saw Lehmann he defiantely was slimmer than he was in the 2000s.

But going back to the point. Even if Lehmann deserved a place, i cant see how he would have challenged junior. If you argue he COULD have played ahead of Law, Ponting, Langer etc, id understand. Since the Waugh brothers where rocks of the batting in the 90s.

 

[Top_Cat]

Ha, well this is probably post PAK 98. Because when in first saw Lehmann he defiantely was slimmer than he was in the 2000s.

Yeah it was, shed a lot of the bulk just to get in the side in '98. Was porky in the early 90's.

But going back to the point. Even if Lehmann deserved a place, i cant see how he would have challenged junior. If you argue he COULD have played ahead of Law, Ponting, Langer etc, id understand. Since the Waugh brothers where rocks of the batting in the 90s.

Which was a joke. How many guys would have held onto their spot after the '97 tour of England after such a woeful series? People point to his knocks in Pt Elizabeth and Adelaide against SA but, post '95, they're two high peaks with a hell of a lot of troughs around them, usually around the time debate would start about his place in the side. After that, the only time he scored any significant runs were against weak oppo or in dead series'. The two knocks above aside, Mark Waugh was the master at cashing in when the going was good and was smack in the middle of so many Aussie collapses. Ridiculously over-rated Test batsman.

Obviously I dunno whether Lehmann/Law/Love/Huss would have done better but geez, they should have been given a chance well before they eventually did. Protected species; yup, Social has that one spot on.

 

[pup11]

This is where we disagree. I think something would seriously be wrong if, in the middle of the Ashes, selectors were thinking anything other than "how are we going to win this series?" Once you've concluded that the only thing that matters is the success of the team, whether it's "fair" to drop someone or whether they're "entitled to" their place in the team becomes irrelevant. You pick the player you think will give you the best chance of winning. Personally, i thought that player was Watson by a whisker, and he's done well to justify that belief.

If selectors were thinking "Watson's more likely to score runs, but we'll pick Hughes anyway because he's entitled to a few failures", that's when I think the selectors would have something clearly wrong in their thought process.

If you, like plenty of others, thought Hughes was more likely to add something to the team than Watson, that's fine- it's just a small disagreement on a borderline call.

I see Hughes' case to be pretty similar to Clarke' when he came to England in 2005, coming into that series Clarke was being touted as the next best thing in Australian cricket,though in that series he had a pretty ordinary time of it, but he still wasn't dropped, despite Australia having an able replacement like Hodge on the sidelines, but here despite Australia not having any reserve opener, it took the think-tank no time whatsoever to show him the door.


The most surprising development out of all of this is how bluntly Neilsen has brushed Hughes aside, he has been saying he exceeded our expectations in South Africa, and how he needs to go away and work on his game, I mean ffs, what were you thinking before you picked him, hadn't the selectors seen him bat before selecting him, or were they just looking at his stats before picking him in the side...?

 

[Richard]

The 11 players that will give the team the best chance of winning should always be picked regardless.

In my book if you thought Hughes was such a thing in SA then you've no excuse for changing that line of thinking based on 1 Test. I said at the time that there was absolutely no compelling case whatsoever to pick Hughes to tour SA and if he had not yet made his debut such a selection would make perfect sense. But seeing him make his debut, perform and then drop him is madness.

People try to draw lines between what's fair and what's the best team - what's the best team is generally best judged on who's performed to deserve being in the best team, and the fair way of doing things is to pick those who perform best. So there's really not much in it.

 

[aussie]

Yeah it was, shed a lot of the bulk just to get in the side in '98. Was porky in the early 90's.



Which was a joke. How many guys would have held onto their spot after the '97 tour of England after such a woeful series? People point to his knocks in Pt Elizabeth and Adelaide against SA but, post '95, they're two high peaks with a hell of a lot of troughs around them, usually around the time debate would start about his place in the side. After that, the only time he scored any significant runs were against weak oppo or in dead series'. The two knocks above aside, Mark Waugh was the master at cashing in when the going was good and was smack in the middle of so many Aussie collapses. Ridiculously over-rated Test batsman.

Obviously I dunno whether Lehmann/Law/Love/Huss would have done better but geez, they should have been given a chance well before they eventually did. Protected species; yup, Social has that one spot on.

Well all this is pretty much factual correct. But the context of M Waugh being termed a "protected species" should not be equated due to the fact that he was failing or anything. It was because the selectors where very much in there rights to back him to keep coming good even if that luck ran out finally by due to his failures from NZ 01 to PAK 02.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Early days, but I might pay Harmison for Fred as an error. Certainly not going for Trott as security was brave, but maybe foolhardy in retropsect.

 

[sledger]

Early days, but I might pay Harmison for Fred as an error. Certainly not going for Trott as security was brave, but maybe foolhardy in retropsect.

Yeah, it appears now to be a ridiculous choice, that said, it was always a dubious one at best even before they went ahead with it.

 

[pup11]

Early days, but I might pay Harmison for Fred as an error. Certainly not going for Trott as security was brave, but maybe foolhardy in retropsect.

Playing Harmison instead of Fred is fine with me, but persisting with Broad and further weakening your batting line-up isn't brave, it's simply a ridiculous decision, which makes hardly any sense at all.

I know England's prime focus in this series has been on taking the 20 wickets to win the game, but I don't think having Broad in the side helps in that regard, and not only that backing Broad to come good with the bat at no.7, also kind of shows, how overrated his batting is within the English think-tank.

Though as an Aussie fan I don't mind this at all, but its just baffling why England would take such a risk when they are already leading in the series, a draw at Headingley could have more or less ensured a series win for them, which should have been all the more a reason for them to stack their side with an extra batsmen.

 

[Uppercut]

Broad's been England's best bowler by so, so much.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Broad's been England's best bowler by so, so much.

Trott could've come straight in for Fred, I suppose. Wouldn't have been the way I'd have gone, but it would have at least reinforced the batting.

 

[GIMH]

Broad at seven was silly, said it at the toss and I stand by it

 

[vic_orthdox]

Trott could've come straight in for Fred, I suppose. Wouldn't have been the way I'd have gone, but it would have at least reinforced the batting.

That's what I would have thought from the start.

 

[Uppercut]

Trott could've come straight in for Fred, I suppose. Wouldn't have been the way I'd have gone, but it would have at least reinforced the batting.

Thought that was the obvious option. It depends whether you'd prefer Harmison or Broad in the team. I think Broad's the better bowler to begin with, and when you take into account how much better-suited to Headingley he is and his vastly superior batting and fielding it's pretty clear-cut to me.

Sidebottom would be a decent call too, Sidey+Trott in for Broad+Fred. I'd have been fine with either.

 

[GIMH]

Sidebottom and Trott was what I wanted to see. Broad looked good yesterday though, and today, find it hard to blame him for the plan he's been asked to bowl to tbh.

He's a good batsman and I think will be able to bat seven in the future, but asking him to do it in an Ashes Test at headingley is ridiculous

 

[morgieb]

Broad at seven was silly, said it at the toss and I stand by it

Well he wasn't getting picked for his bowling, what else would he get picked for?

 

[GIMH]

Agarkar's law hit him hard yesterday.

 

[irfan]

Agarkar's law hit him hard yesterday.

Haha. Certainly an Agarkar-esque bowling perfomance when half his wickets were the batsman trying to slog him out the park.

 

[Prince EWS]

Agarkar's law hit him hard yesterday.

Haha indeed; I love Agarkar's law.