Selection Policy (IMO)

[Richard]

They're not though. No-one is going to benefit from playing international cricket before they're ready. It's not possible.

And BTW - you're not seriously suggesting Sharma and Southee are remotely likely to be anything like in the Tendulkar\Warne class?

 

[social]

They're not though. No-one is going to benefit from playing international cricket before they're ready. It's not possible.

And BTW - you're not seriously suggesting Sharma and Southee are remotely likely to be anything like in the Tendulkar\Warne class?

Southee got 5 wickets and 77 not out ON TEST DEBUT and is arguably the best bowler in the current ODI series

Ishant's bowling (which I can only assume you didnt see) was a major part of India's comeback in the recent test series vs Australia

So what if they're only 19 - they are good enough and are proving it

Thank God you're not a selector or the world would be subjected to hacks like Ufsaal and Loye who are OBVIOUSLY not international class no matter what their fc records say

 

[Richard]

No, there's no obvious in it, nor are First-Class records anything to do with anything whatsoever, as I'd only have picked those two for ODIs, not Tests. You think they wouldn't be ODI-class - that's different to whether they would be. Something which knows better than you (ie, the game itself) suggests otherwise.

If I was a selector cricket teams would be in far better states than they are now. And no, that's not being boastful, that's the way it is as far as I'm concerned. Applies to a good few other people on these boards too. Selectors often do a very, very poor job in their attempts to know better than the game itself.

Southee and Sharma are bowlers with obvious potential, and no more than that. Neither of them are the finished article at the current time, and have only got into their national teams due to a surfeit of injuries.

 

[Manee]

Harmison - never deserved to play Test cricket, never any good at it apart from in the first few months of 2004.

And against Pakistan in England in 2006(?).

 

[Flem274*]

Skipping the rest of the debate a bit, Richard I disagree on your statement "being out of your depth does you no good." You can learn alot from playing a level up from what you're used to. The most recent example I can think of is Grant Elliott. On test debut he sucked. He then went back to domestic cricket and hit 196*, by far and away his best FC performance ever, he'd never done anything like that in his career before. After the knock I believe he said it was because he learnt alot playing at test level in only one match. In ODIs he already looks a better player than he was a few months ago and now he actualy has a chance of a half-decent career, unlike no chance before his learning experience.

 

[Manee]

No, there's no obvious in it, nor are First-Class records anything to do with anything whatsoever, as I'd only have picked those two for ODIs, not Tests. You think they wouldn't be ODI-class - that's different to whether they would be. Something which knows better than you (ie, the game itself) suggests otherwise.

If I was a selector cricket teams would be in far better states than they are now. And no, that's not being boastful, that's the way it is as far as I'm concerned. Applies to a good few other people on these boards too. Selectors often do a very, very poor job in their attempts to know better than the game itself.

Southee and Sharma are bowlers with obvious potential, and no more than that. Neither of them are the finished article at the current time, and have only got into their national teams due to a surfeit of injuries.

Would I be one of them

In all seriousness though, do you eliminate the possibility of Test experience giving a raw player the exposure needed to improve and rapidly realise potential. Ishant Sharma, as an example, would have stagnated in domestic cricket and given some unfortunately flat pitches, he could have blended into the crowd as an 135kph bowler bowling 25 overs in a day. However, the Australia tour gave Ishant an opportunity on pitches more lively than he would have ever played and he stepped his bowling up a level as well as bowling up to 150kph with spells (I'll give you that it was only spells) of good accuracy. This level of bowling he had not previously realised, even in his previous Tests against Bangladesh and Pakistan - both within the subcontinent. Sometimes, a 'punt' must be made on away tours as a bowlers FC record can become somewhat moot. I agree though that FC records are not given nearly enough credance on home tours though and would still, to this day, like to see how Joginder Sharma or even Gagandeep Singh, whose bowling style disappointed me greatly, after seeing him bowl in the IPL, would fare on an extremely flat pitch in India in a Test match - they may have good home seaming pitches but both do it away from home on often flat pitches.

 

[Richard]

Skipping the rest of the debate a bit, Richard I disagree on your statement "being out of your depth does you no good." You can learn alot from playing a level up from what you're used to. The most recent example I can think of is Grant Elliott. On test debut he sucked. He then went back to domestic cricket and hit 196*, by far and away his best FC performance ever, he'd never done anything like that in his career before. After the knock I believe he said it was because he learnt alot playing at test level in only one match. In ODIs he already looks a better player than he was a few months ago and now he actualy has a chance of a half-decent career, unlike no chance before his learning experience.

Until he plays Test cricket again (which TBH I still hope he doesn't do as he looked woeful in that single Test) we cannot say so much as a thing about his case.

Elliott has evidently always been a good one-day batsman since defecting to New Zealand. It's nothing to do with his Test that he's doing well in ODIs early on.

People often say they've learnt a lot from being outclassed in a Test, especially if they get an interview shortly after having performed well in a domestic game or two. I never believe a word of it. Because there's no possible good being outclassed can do you.

 

[Richard]

And against Pakistan in England in 2006(?).

Nah, not even close. 1 Test when Pakistan imploded - same as WI in 2004, it was virtually no good bowling and just copious amounts of abysmal batting. It wasn't even a thing to do with the fabled bounce - nearly all his wickets came from pitched-up deliveries.

Apart from that game at Old Trafford, Harmison was woeful in 2006. Balmed-out his figures a little bit (they were still poor) with an end-of-innings wicket at Lord's and four end-of-innings wickets at The Oval, but he still bowled crap in both games, and at Headingley.

 

[Flem274*]

Until he plays Test cricket again (which TBH I still hope he doesn't do as he looked woeful in that single Test) we cannot say so much as a thing about his case.

Elliott has evidently always been a good one-day batsman since defecting to New Zealand. It's nothing to do with his Test that he's doing well in ODIs early on.

People often say they've learnt a lot from being outclassed in a Test, especially if they get an interview shortly after having performed well in a domestic game or two. I never believe a word of it. Because there's no possible good being outclassed can do you.

Not even by watching how the better players do the things they do, getting advice from your superior team mates etc?

 

[Richard]

Would I be one of them

Possibly, though I confess I've not read sufficient of your musings on Indian cricket to be able to offer much of a judgement TBH, I is afraid.

In all seriousness though, do you eliminate the possibility of Test experience giving a raw player the exposure needed to improve and rapidly realise potential. Ishant Sharma, as an example, would have stagnated in domestic cricket and given some unfortunately flat pitches, he could have blended into the crowd as an 135kph bowler bowling 25 overs in a day. However, the Australia tour gave Ishant an opportunity on pitches more lively than he would have ever played and he stepped his bowling up a level as well as bowling up to 150kph with spells (I'll give you that it was only spells) of good accuracy. This level of bowling he had not previously realised, even in his previous Tests against Bangladesh and Pakistan - both within the subcontinent. Sometimes, a 'punt' must be made on away tours as a bowlers FC record can become somewhat moot. I agree though that FC records are not given nearly enough credance on home tours though and would still, to this day, like to see how Joginder Sharma or even Gagandeep Singh, whose bowling style disappointed me greatly, after seeing him bowl in the IPL, would fare on an extremely flat pitch in India in a Test match - they may have good home seaming pitches but both do it away from home on often flat pitches.

If Sharma can't conquer pitches such as Indian domestic cricket may incur - he's not going to make a good Test bowler, purely and simply. You have to have the mindset of being able to slog it out, more than ever as an Indian seamer. If Sharma hasn't got this, you could delay finding-out by picking him too early and relieving him of the burden temporarily, but it'd come-out some day, possibly before long.

There's no evidence at the current time, I hasten to add, that he hasn't got the prepared-for-a-hard-slog mindset. We'll only find-out when we find-out. Sadly it seems this is something that afflicts Munaf Patel. Hopefully Sharma is immune.

 

[Richard]

Not even by watching how the better players do the things they do, getting advice from your superior team mates etc?

You don't have to play Test cricket to do this. The best non-Test-players will always be seeking-out top-class players and picking their brains. And obviously you should always watch superior players as someone looking to make your way in the game. There are things called TVs, and there is nowadays this thing called video analysis too.

It's why being "around" the team without playing for a while can be so beneficial, as it specifically encourages this for those who otherwise might not make the effort \ be Kajagoogoo.

 

[NUFAN]

No, there's no obvious in it, nor are First-Class records anything to do with anything whatsoever, as I'd only have picked those two for ODIs, not Tests. You think they wouldn't be ODI-class - that's different to whether they would be. Something which knows better than you (ie, the game itself) suggests otherwise.

If I was a selector cricket teams would be in far better states than they are now. And no, that's not being boastful, that's the way it is as far as I'm concerned. Applies to a good few other people on these boards too. Selectors often do a very, very poor job in their attempts to know better than the game itself.

Southee and Sharma are bowlers with obvious potential, and no more than that. Neither of them are the finished article at the current time, and have only got into their national teams due to a surfeit of injuries.

Very interesting call.

It makes sense to back yourself and I'm sure some at times there'd be a few countries that you as a selector would be a better option, but do you think for instance as a selector for Australia, you'd do a better job?

 

[Perm]

social - have you seen Tim Southee bowl? I've watched almost all his career and read copious amounts on him, and never once AFAIK has he been clocked at 150 kph. I think if he really pushes it he can get up to around 145, but usually he's between 135 and 140. Ishant Sharma bowled some pretty quick spells in Australia, and did get over 150 kph occassionally, but I seem to remember most of his deliveries being in the high 130's-low 140's.

FTR I was against both Sharma and Southee being selected when they were, for a number of reasons. They are both still very young and have very little experience in FC cricket. When the going gets tough in a Test or ODI they don't have much to fall back on, and will struggle to cope. Even though both have had great success so far in their careers you must keep in mind they have only played a handful of games, hardly enough to say anything other than "they've got potential".

 

[Perm]

Very interesting call.

It makes sense to back yourself and I'm sure some at times there'd be a few countries that you as a selector would be a better option, but do you think for instance as a selector for Australia, you'd do a better job?

Without wanting to speak on Richard's behalf, I doubt he was referring to the all-conquering Australian team and it's selectors, as they have hardly put a foot wrong in the last decade or so. Obviously they've made mistakes, but not as many as the likes of selectors from New Zealand, England etc.

 

[Richard]

Very interesting call.

It makes sense to back yourself and I'm sure some at times there'd be a few countries that you as a selector would be a better option, but do you think for instance as a selector for Australia, you'd do a better job?

Yes.

I'd never have picked Andrew Symonds ahead of Simon Katich in SL in 2003/04; I'd never have picked Nathan Hauritz ahead of MacGill in 2004/05 (or, for that matter, Gavin Robertson ahead of him in 1997/98); I'd not have dropped Martyn in 2005/06; I'd not have dropped Lehmann for Watson in 2004/05.

For instance.

This is all, of course, on the assumption that I had complete carte-blanche to do exactly as I thought would be best, rather than having a press-pack breathing down the neck ATT.

As mentioned, these mistakes are small in number compared to those made by other countries (obviously they're helped by the fact that more good players makes it harder to make mistakes) but they're still there and I'd still back myself to have not made them.

 

[Perm]

This is all, of course, on the assumption that I had complete carte-blanche to do exactly as I thought would be best, rather than having a press-pack breathing down the neck ATT.

Ah but Richard, that is one of the hardest things about being an international cricket selector. Every decision you make is anaylzed by the media and the public, and if you are perceived to have made a wrong one, often you'll be crucified by the two.

 

[Manee]

social - have you seen Tim Southee bowl? I've watched almost all his career and read copious amounts on him

Any articles which you wish to share?

 

[pasag]

But if you have such an outstanding talent, you ought to be able to prove it in domestic cricket for a year.

Yeah, agree fully with that.

 

[Richard]

Ah but Richard, that is one of the hardest things about being an international cricket selector. Every decision you make is anaylzed by the media and the public, and if you are perceived to have made a wrong one, often you'll be crucified by the two.

Indeed, which is why I don't always blame selectors - I blame the press more readily, as mostly selection is basically who the greater majority of the press wants.

Trouble is, usually they'll call for rubbish, useless wastes of space like Sajid Mahmood to be picked (and if you make the right decision and pick Neil Killeen instead of him and Killeen does OK but sometimes had his limitations exposed it's "England did the usual negative thing and didn't pick wicket-takers") and then when it doesn't work they'll conveniently skirt around the fact that it's mostly their fault because the "wicket-takers" they wanted turned-out to not merely be expensive pie-throwers but also not wicket-takers (which would've been obvious if they'd looked at domestic cricket) and say "the selectors must take responsibility for England's poor performance".

Sometimes I really hate the cricket press. And by the sounds of things, matters are better in the UK than several other places.

BTW, the middle parapraph is a poor mixture of specific and general. But you get the point.

 

[Perm]

Any articles which you wish to share?

Just match reports and interviews etc. No in-depth bowling anaylsis sorry.