Selection errors tally thread

[Richard]

It's not an error, it's that the selectors have knowledge that we, and the world's press don't have, eg how is Clark's fitness, how has he been bowling in the nets, how has Hilfy been bowling etc. Just because something is a 'surprise' to most informed opinion doesn't make it an error.

Until we know what they know about Clark's fitness, it's for us to call them out on an error. It's for them to give the info about why it's not an error. If Clark is below the required fitness levels, fair enough, but in order to justify not picking him they need to state this. To date, from what I've heard, they haven't.

I've maintained all my life that picking someone on net form is pure folly. The nets are a place to improve your game, not to assess how good your game is. Clark bowled damn well in the Lions tour game; Hilfenhaus was, rightly, adjudged to be sufficiently far down the pecking-order to not play.

The only acceptable reason for Clark's non-selection is that he's not up to the desired fitness levels.

And while you can dismiss 'hindsight', the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and so far Hilfy has bowled very well, so no way has this been an error.

I've seen you argue this before. I disagree completely. A selection should be judged on what it has going for it at the time said selection is made, with no consideration given to what happens thereafter because no-one can ever have any means of coming close to knowing that. Otherwise picking Graeme Hick in 1996 would be adjudged to be a mistake, when it quite patently wasn't.

Hilfenhaus bowling very well is to his full credit, but in no way to the selectors' or indeed anyone else's.

 

[Matt79]

Completely disagree on both your points there. The selectors owe no one any explanation - the only accountability that they are subject to is whether the team they choose plays well. We KNOW they are privy to info we don't have, and the only sensible conclusion is that something in that info led them to prefer one bowler over the other. The only way
to judge wheter that preference was correct is what the
preferred player produces.

As much as we like to play at being selectors from our armchair, in the early stages of a tour we simply don't have the info to do it as well as the selectors, or to condemn them for their calls. It's a bit different on issues of team balance, like taking two or one spinner or five or six batsmen, but even then it's fraught.

 

[Richard]

Completely disagree on both your points there. The selectors owe no one any explanation - the only accountability that they are subject to is whether the team they choose plays well.

AFAIC, selectors owe everyone an explanation for everything they do. All jobs are done better when there is maximum accountability. It is up to the selectors to show that they have made an informed choice. Whether the team they choose plays well is something completely and totally outside their power. Only the players can play well.

We KNOW they are privy to info we don't have, and the only sensible conclusion is that something in that info led them to prefer one bowler over the other. The only way to judge wheter that preference was correct is what the preferred player produces.

How can this be justified? No-one knows how a player is going to perform. Are you honestly suggesting that if a player performs poorly he was a poor selection and if he performs well he was a good one?

That's akin to saying that someone who walked into a minefield knowing it was a minefield when he could have walked somewhere he knew wasn't made the right decision just because he happened not to step on one and get blown to bits.

As much as we like to play at being selectors from our armchair, in the early stages of a tour we simply don't have the info to do it as well as the selectors, or to condemn them for their calls. It's a bit different on issues of team balance, like taking two or one spinner or five or six batsmen, but even then it's fraught.

I don't accept that the selector always knows better and that the armchair pundit should never criticise. Not at all. That someone is paid to do a job doesn't mean they're always better at it than someone who isn't.

 

[Uppercut]

How can this be justified? No-one knows how a player is going to perform. Are you honestly suggesting that if a player performs poorly he was a poor selection and if he performs well he was a good one?

That's not the case, but there's a massive amount of evidence that can be gained from the results. Like, when the selectors pick Hilfenhaus and he immediately bowls accurate 90mph outswingers all day and picks up two (should have been three) massive, game-changing wickets, you can reasonably assume that he was doing the same in the nets for a few days beforehand.

 

[Top_Cat]

I feel like I'm watching the Family Guy ep on drive-by arguments.

 

[Uppercut]

Oh, Corey...
...
...
...


I DISAGREE!

 

[Top_Cat]

**** me, glad someone got it.

 

[aussie]

I dont think there should be a debate on whether the selectors picked Hilfenhaus ahead of Clark. Hilfy should have always been Lee's replacement & Clark should have been playing ahead of Hauritz.

 

[Jono]

How can this be justified? No-one knows how a player is going to perform. Are you honestly suggesting that if a player performs poorly he was a poor selection and if he performs well he was a good one?

I disagree with this. A lot of it depends on what the selectors reasons were. If they had some inkling of what was going to happen, or believed that by selecting this player, such a good result would have the best possibility of happening, and it does happen, than its the right move.

As unlikely as it is, if Panesar takes 12 wickets, and England win the game, it makes it the right decision
I don't see how anyone could say to the face of the selectors and say "you were wrong" if that happened.

Same with Hilfenhaus. At the end of the test, if he's taken 9-for, and been very tight, and Australia win largely because of his bowling, even if Clark was 100% fit, it was the right move... providing that Clark wouldn't have likely done better.

Its not always hindsight, sometimes its just "wow, they figured this would happen whilst we didn't".

For the record I wouldn't have done either, but I find it hard to call out the selectors when what they do is proven right. So if it does happen, you can't have a go at them for it.

 

[Top_Cat]

 

[GIMH]

At the end of the day the selectors' job is to pick the team, nothing else, they don't have to justify themselves to us. But they do have info that we don't, and as such when something that seemed odd comes off it shouldn't automatically be assumed to be a fluke.

 

[Matt79]

AFAIC, selectors owe everyone an explanation for everything they do. All jobs are done better when there is maximum accountability. It is up to the selectors to show that they have made an informed choice. Whether the team they choose plays well is something completely and totally outside their power. Only the players can play well.

How can this be justified? No-one knows how a player is going to perform. Are you honestly suggesting that if a player performs poorly he was a poor selection and if he performs well he was a good one?

That's akin to saying that someone who walked into a minefield knowing it was a minefield when he could have walked somewhere he knew wasn't made the right decision just because he happened not to step on one and get blown to bits.

I don't accept that the selector always knows better and that the armchair pundit should never criticise. Not at all. That someone is paid to do a job doesn't mean they're always better at it than someone who isn't.

as you said, we've been around this a few times, so shan't go on too long - Jono has basically summed up my view pretty well. The real issue IMO is that you have very firm ideas on what a selector should base their selections on, and get disappointed or annoyed when selections are made on other bases. However, most selectors don't share those particular views and neither do I.

Based on their intimate knowledge on the condition, form and abilities of the squad members, which they are uniquely placed to possess, selectors will choose the players they think best match what the team needs. No one ourside the touring squad can really call those decisions errors, because we simply don't have the required info. That's the issue, not whether they are paid and we're not.

And I disagree that the 'more accountability the better' idea. Picking a team to please every hack journo and asshole on CW is a recipe for disaster. Clear, simple accountability to one party on simple criteria will produce the best results. In this case, the Oz selectors are, and should be, only accountable to CA to pick a team that will win the Ashes. If they succeed in that, by definition they've done a good job. The only other criteria is to position the squad to develop well in years to come, which should only be a secondary goal.

 

[Richard]

I disagree with this. A lot of it depends on what the selectors reasons were. If they had some inkling of what was going to happen, or believed that by selecting this player, such a good result would have the best possibility of happening, and it does happen, than its the right move.

As unlikely as it is, if Panesar takes 12 wickets, and England win the game, it makes it the right decision
I don't see how anyone could say to the face of the selectors and say "you were wrong" if that happened.

Same with Hilfenhaus. At the end of the test, if he's taken 9-for, and been very tight, and Australia win largely because of his bowling, even if Clark was 100% fit, it was the right move... providing that Clark wouldn't have likely done better.

Its not always hindsight, sometimes its just "wow, they figured this would happen whilst we didn't".

No-one figured or will ever figure that something will happen. No-one can ever come remotely close to knowing how someone will perform. All they can do is weigh-up what evidence exists to suggest how someone will perform before the selection is made, and make the selection based on that.

You need more than "some inkling" to make an acceptable selection. Just picking on random gut-feel is not acceptable. Every selection should be based on the soundest possible grounding, and it's been proven time and again that gut feel is not sound reasoning, at all.

How Clark bowled in the Lions game is far more sound reasoning than how Hilfenhaus appeared to bowl in the nets. As, of course, are how the two have bowled in the rest of their careers.

 

[Richard]

That's not the case, but there's a massive amount of evidence that can be gained from the results. Like, when the selectors pick Hilfenhaus and he immediately bowls accurate 90mph outswingers all day and picks up two (should have been three) massive, game-changing wickets, you can reasonably assume that he was doing the same in the nets for a few days beforehand.

And equally, no-one will know how Clark - if fit to a decent level - might have bowled. He could quite easily have bowled better. No-one is suggesting Hilfenhaus is a hack, merely that there was precious little to no justification for picking him ahead of a fully-fit Clark.

 

[Uppercut]

How Clark bowled in the Lions game is far more sound reasoning than how Hilfenhaus appeared to bowl in the nets. As, of course, are how the two have bowled in the rest of their careers.

Hilfenhaus played the previous warm-up game that wasn't televised though, I suspect that they gained information on how he was bowling predominantly from that. He bowled very well by all accounts, although at the time I thought that just meant doing his usual trick of getting the ball in the right areas at pace and with swing but not taking any wickets nor looking like taking any wickets.

 

[Craig]

They interviewed Tim Nielsen just then and he said that they felt that Siddle and Clark were similar bowlers, and they felt Hilfenhaus could get some movement and they wanted to play a spinner. So if they played Hilfenhaus and no Hauritz and then Clark and Siddle would of been too similar.

 

[Uppercut]

And equally, no-one will know how Clark - if fit to a decent level - might have bowled. He could quite easily have bowled better. No-one is suggesting Hilfenhaus is a hack, merely that there was precious little to no justification for picking him ahead of a fully-fit Clark.

Personally i think Clark would have got something like 12-3-20-0 yesterday. Everyone would say he showed good control, and no one would even question whether Hilfenhaus would have done better.

IMO, the selectors deserve credit for picking the side that they thought would win them the game, not the side that would avoid upsetting a bunch of armchair selectors without half the knowledge that they had.

 

[Richard]

And I disagree that the 'more accountability the better' idea. Picking a team to please every hack journo and asshole on CW is a recipe for disaster.

That's not the implication and you know it, you've merely manufactured that in order to create a straw-man. The point is that if you make a pick, you should have to give the reasons. Simply mysteriously taking the "aaaahhh, this is the way things must be done" stance is not, in my view, acceptable.

Clear, simple accountability to one party on simple criteria will produce the best results. In this case, the Oz selectors are, and should be, only accountable to CA to pick a team that will win the Ashes. If they succeed in that, by definition they've done a good job. The only other criteria is to position the squad to develop well in years to come, which should only be a secondary goal.

No, the criteria should be to pick the best eleven available at all times (A teams, squads and the like are the place to be positioning players to develop in years to come). Are you really suggesting that if Australia were playing West Indies and Daniel Doran was picked ahead of Mitchell Johnson, that'd not be a mistake, just because Australia would almost certainly win anyway?

No selector is to blame if the best players available are not good enough; equally, it is to the credit of no selector if despite hundreds of occasions when inferior players are ignored for superior ones the team keeps winning.

 

[Richard]

They interviewed Tim Nielsen just then and he said that they felt that Siddle and Clark were similar bowlers, and they felt Hilfenhaus could get some movement and they wanted to play a spinner. So if they played Hilfenhaus and no Hauritz and then Clark and Siddle would of been too similar.

"Too similar" is a notoriously stupid reason for not picking players.

Quality, not variety, is the order of the day where cricketers are concerned.

Still, at least bad reasoning is better than refusing to give reasoning at all.

 

[Richard]

IMO, the selectors deserve credit for picking the side that they thought would win them the game, not the side that would avoid upsetting a bunch of armchair selectors without half the knowledge that they had.

Obviously they do - they just deserve discredit for failing to recognise which side would have the best chance of winning the game.