Taking a punt

[Magrat Garlick]

It sounds, to my (you might say ineducated) ears, far better than "uneducated".

There's only one adjective formed from a verb/noun (thus ending in "-ed") which takes "in-" to reverse it - that's inexperienced.

Presumably it's because there's considerable amount of verbs and nouns starting with in, inter, intro, etc., which increases potential confusion, but a lot fewer starting with un.

 

[Flem274*]

Richard should get a job in PR.

 

[Top_Cat]

Richard should get a job

Corrected.

 

[Flem274*]

Corrected.

 

[Richard]

Corrected.

That's what they say to all students. I'll make do with part-time for the next 3-and-a-half (maybe 7-and-a-half) years thanks.

 

[Top_Cat]

That's what they say to all students. I'll make do with part-time for the next 3-and-a-half (maybe 7-and-a-half) years thanks.

Hehe, just imagining you arguing your 'English' rule with a future employer makes me chuckle.

 

[Julian87]

Not really. Holding and Warne weren't successful when they had the punts taken on them - both struggled early. Same thing true of Imran Khan - he played in England in 1971 and 1974 with no success. It was only in 1976/77 that he was really up to the task.

The point I always try to make is that taking a punt is pointless. Holding, Warne and Imran (and many others) were picked before they needed to be picked - and all suffered for it. Players as good as they will always come good eventually. It'd have been better for all concerned if selectors had just waited until they had come good, then picked them in Tests.

None of them were good selections at the time they were first selected - but the fact that they went on to become quality players doesn't justify them having been picked before they were. Someone who ends-up a quality player, certainly as good as those three (and many others) is going to become quality, no matter what (bar the obvious, such as six spinal fractures). Picking them too early is simply a needless piece of impetuosity. Sometimes it's down to incompetence (selectors believing they know better than the game); sometimes impatience (thinking "I'm so sure he's going to be quality, I want him to hurry the **** up and do it, maybe he'll go quicker if I pick him now?"); sometimes plain pig-headedness ("if I pick him now and keep faith with him when he has a few rough early games, when he turns-out quality I'll look like a genius").

I realise this is fairly detailed, and this is (lo-and-behold) the fourth paragraph - I honestly haven't designed this to fit your prediction, nor are you Nostradamus - but I hope this isn't what you had in mind. Nowhere am I suggesting anyone "got lucky".

I disagree with this entire theory. Who are you to know that Shane Warne would have improved to the level he became if he had never been selected in that first test match? Same for everyone like this including Imran Kahn and Michael Holding. IMO your theory is the most basleless and opinionated, unproven crap I have read in quite some time. There is no way to prove it or disprove it.

 

[Julian87]

This post just illustrates all that is wrong with the "taking a punt is worth doing" mantra. The assumption is made that if a punt wasn't taken on Shane Warne in 1991/92 - a punt which failed to pay-off - then Warne would never have played Test cricket. This notion is, quite simply, absurd. Warne was a class bowler who, had he not been picked when he first was, would, when he became good enough, have put in the performances and demanded his Test selection.

The assumption that if you don't take a punt on a player whose initial selection was a punt would result in that player never playing at all is just completely, horribly, wrong.

Mere opinion.

 

[zaremba]

Mere opinion.

This part of this web site is called "cricket chat". Brace yourself to hear some people's opinions....

I'm not agreeing with Richard's view here - a typically trenchant, some might say fundamentalist view - but he's entitled to express his opinion.

 

[Noble One]

Taking a punt.

How about the bowler many consider the finest of them all? S.F Barnes. Only 9 first class wickets, playing Lancashire league cricket. Selected to tour Australia based on a mere recommendation.

That punt worked out well.

 

[BoyBrumby]

This part of this web site is called "cricket chat". Brace yourself to hear some people's opinions....

I'm not agreeing with Richard's view here - a typically trenchant, some might say fundamentalist view - but he's entitled to express his opinion.

Indeed so. It's really the way he expresses his opinion & the sheer number of times he feels the need to bludgeon us with it that I have the problems with.

One would hope in the course of a debate for at least some evolution of the discussion too, but so convinced is Dicko of the correctness of his (let's be honest here) preposterous idea and so steadfast in his refusal to even countenance that the other fellow might have a point is he, that it becomes very tiresome indeed.

 

[Goughy]

I can kind of see all POV here. Clearly you can’t bash guys when they make a correct decision but you can certainly criticize the logic that goes into making a decision and believe the logic and rationale to be flawed even if it turns out successful.

We are essentially playing a probability game and looking to follow best practices. It’s impossible for all selections to fail but pursuing a flawed logic redues the probability of players being a success. One success does not validate the approach.

If I bet my life to double my money on a $1 bet by calling heads or tails on the flip of a quarter and win, it doesn’t make it a good decision. I’m a dollar richer but the process was, IMO, flawed. An extreme example but just because something turns out right doesn’t make the process correct.

In fact that logic is the quickest way to run a business into the ground.

 

[zaremba]

I can kind of see all POV here. Clearly you can’t bash guys when they make a correct decision but you can certainly criticize the logic that goes into making a decision and believe the logic and rationale to be flawed even if it turns out successful.

We are essentially playing a probability game and looking to follow best practices. It’s impossible for all selections to fail but pursuing a flawed logic redues the probability of players being a success. One success does not validate the approach.

If I bet my life to double my money on a $1 bet by calling heads or tails on the flip of a quarter and win, it doesn’t make it a good decision. I’m a dollar richer but the process was, IMO, flawed. An extreme example but just because something turns out right doesn’t make the process correct.

In fact that logic is the quickest way to run a business into the ground.

I can certainly see the logic of what we might call the Richard approach.

But we should be careful in describing left-field selections as "punts" in the sense of being completely irrational (as per the coin toss example). There is often something sometimes quite intangible about what a selector might see in a young player which makes a selection seem like a bit of a punt. Be it a performance in a net session, the character they've showed in a particular tough situation, or whatever. From the outside, where each and every one of us unfortunately sits, such selections can appear unreasoned and random, but in reality they're not.

Ian Healy's selection was a good example. He hadn't done much in FC cricket when selected for Australia but was basically picked on the basis of the character that the selectors had seen in him. And I don't think that we can disregard the evidence of what subsequently transpired when we come to assessing whether or not that was a good selection at the time it was made because we got the chance, over the course of several years, to see the same character displayed to us which the selectors had been able to identify before picking him.

 

[SJS]

Taking a punt.

How about the bowler many consider the finest of them all? S.F Barnes. Only 9 first class wickets, playing Lancashire league cricket. Selected to tour Australia based on a mere recommendation.

That punt worked out well.

Well it wasn't a punt really. IT was a combination of various factors that made Maclaren take him to Australia in 1901-02.

First and foremost Barnes had a great reputation at Burnley even if the cricket was not of county standards.

Secondly, Lord Hawke refused to release Rhodes and Hirst, the two first choice bowlers for the English touring side giving the excuse that Yorkshire could not spare them since "a tour of Australia would wear out Hirst and Rhodes and Yorkshire cricket would thereby suffer." Lord Hawke had a running feud with Maclaren which continued long after this tour.

Three, Maclaren, who was Lancashire's captain, had decided to play Barnes in this season ending county match in August 1901 against Leicestershire. On a good wicket, Barnes ran through Leicester's first innings with six for 70. The second innings was almost entirely washed out.

Andrew Searle writes in Barnes's biography . . .

The real circumstances of Barnes inclusion in the touring party followed the county game against Leicestershire. "That man is a fine bowler. I am going to ask him to join my team in Australia." Maclaren is reported to have told some of his senior players after Barnes's six wicket haul.

When the experienced Lancashire batsman Albert Ward asked Barnes, "Has Maclaren said anything about going to Australia?" Barnes was flabbergasted, clearly believing it was a typical piece of dressing room humour. Moreover, after recieving a telegram inviting him to tour during a Lancashire league game a few weekes later Barnes though it was a continuation of the ruse. It was only when Joe Allen, his Burnley captain ordered him off the field to accept the offer that Barnes knew it was no joke.

On the boat to Australia Barnes asked Maclaren why he had been selected, pointing ut that he hadn't even seen a Test match - let alone thought of playing in one - and that he wasn't a fast bowler. Maclaren shrewdly replied,"You are fast enough for what I want, Barnes."

Evidentaly this was a new experience for Maclaren, having a player claim that maybe he wasn't good enough, or the right type of player for the team. " I think we will get on well together," he said. "I would rather have a man say what he thinks than have a 'yes' man and then go away and grouse with the others."

Barnes then gave Maclaren a taste of what the cricket administrators of England were to experience time and again for the next twenty years. "I shall NEVER do that. If I do not agree with you I shall always say so,"

Although Maclaren has been repeatedly described as pig headed, and his tactics often seemed dubious, his decision to take Barnes to Australia was due to sound common sense. . . With the enforced unavailability of Hirst and Rhodes, Maclaren had a hunch that Barnes would be ideally suited to Australian conditions after seeing him perform against Leicestershire. It was one of the most inspired hunches of all time.​

 

[Top_Cat]

I can certainly see the logic of what we might call the Richard approach.

But we should be careful in describing left-field selections as "punts" in the sense of being completely irrational (as per the coin toss example). There is often something sometimes quite intangible about what a selector might see in a young player which makes a selection seem like a bit of a punt. Be it a performance in a net session, the character they've showed in a particular tough situation, or whatever. From the outside, where each and every one of us unfortunately sits, such selections can appear unreasoned and random, but in reality they're not.

Ian Healy's selection was a good example. He hadn't done much in FC cricket when selected for Australia but was basically picked on the basis of the character that the selectors had seen in him. And I don't think that we can disregard the evidence of what subsequently transpired when we come to assessing whether or not that was a good selection at the time it was made because we got the chance, over the course of several years, to see the same character displayed to us which the selectors had been able to identify before picking him.

Brilliant. Describes the difference between a punt and a guess rather nicely.

 

[Uppercut]

Well it wasn't a punt really. IT was a combination of various factors that made Maclaren take him to Australia in 1901-02.

First and foremost Barnes had a great reputation at Burnley even if the cricket was not of county standards.

Secondly, Lord Hawke refused to release Rhodes and Hirst, the two first choice bowlers for the English touring side giving the excuse that Yorkshire could not spare them since "a tour of Australia would wear out Hirst and Rhodes and Yorkshire cricket would thereby suffer." Lord Hawke had a running feud with Maclaren which continued long after this tour.

Three, Maclaren, who was Lancashire's captain, had decided to play Barnes in this season ending county match in August 1901 against Leicestershire. On a good wicket, Barnes ran through Leicester's first innings with six for 70. The second innings was almost entirely washed out.

Andrew Searle writes in Barnes's biography . . .

The real circumstances of Barnes inclusion in the touring party followed the county game against Leicestershire. "That man is a fine bowler. I am going to ask him to join my team in Australia." Maclaren is reported to have told some of his senior players after Barnes's six wicket haul.

When the experienced Lancashire batsman Albert Ward asked Barnes, "Has Maclaren said anything about going to Australia?" Barnes was flabbergasted, clearly believing it was a typical piece of dressing room humour. Moreover, after recieving a telegram inviting him to tour during a Lancashire league game a few weekes later Barnes though it was a continuation of the ruse. It was only when Joe Allen, his Burnley captain ordered him off the field to accept the offer that Barnes knew it was no joke.

On the boat to Australia Barnes asked Maclaren why he had been selected, pointing ut that he hadn't even seen a Test match - let alone thought of playing in one - and that he wasn't a fast bowler. Maclaren shrewdly replied,"You are fast enough for what I want, Barnes."

Evidentaly this was a new experience for Maclaren, having a player claim that maybe he wasn't good enough, or the right type of player for the team. " I think we will get on well together," he said. "I would rather have a man say what he thinks than have a 'yes' man and then go away and grouse with the others."

Barnes then gave Maclaren a taste of what the cricket administrators of England were to experience time and again for the next twenty years. "I shall NEVER do that. If I do not agree with you I shall always say so,"

Although Maclaren has been repeatedly described as pig headed, and his tactics often seemed dubious, his decision to take Barnes to Australia was due to sound common sense. . . With the enforced unavailability of Hirst and Rhodes, Maclaren had a hunch that Barnes would be ideally suited to Australian conditions after seeing him perform against Leicestershire. It was one of the most inspired hunches of all time.​

Really interesting. You're coming up with some fascinating stuff lately.

I love the quaint Victorian language used in such stories.

 

[Richard]

I disagree with this entire theory. Who are you to know that Shane Warne would have improved to the level he became if he had never been selected in that first test match? Same for everyone like this including Imran Kahn and Michael Holding. IMO your theory is the most basleless and opinionated, unproven crap I have read in quite some time. There is no way to prove it or disprove it.

Someone who thinks that Warne would never have become good enough to play Test cricket had he not been prematurely pitched into it is taking a rather larger leap of faith than someone who thinks that he'd have upped his game to the required levels via whatever means.

The cream rises to the top under the vast majority of circumstances.

 

[Richard]

Indeed so. It's really the way he expresses his opinion & the sheer number of times he feels the need to bludgeon us with it that I have the problems with.

One would hope in the course of a debate for at least some evolution of the discussion too, but so convinced is Dicko of the correctness of his (let's be honest here) preposterous idea and so steadfast in his refusal to even countenance that the other fellow might have a point is he, that it becomes very tiresome indeed.

It's really ridiculously ironic that you criticise me for putting accross opinion as fact and do that yourself with the "his preposterous idea" stuff in this very post.

 

[Richard]

But we should be careful in describing left-field selections as "punts" in the sense of being completely irrational (as per the coin toss example). There is often something sometimes quite intangible about what a selector might see in a young player which makes a selection seem like a bit of a punt. Be it a performance in a net session, the character they've showed in a particular tough situation, or whatever. From the outside, where each and every one of us unfortunately sits, such selections can appear unreasoned and random, but in reality they're not.

I really wish people would realise, more, that I don't have any problem whatsoever with people making judgements on players' potential. What I have always said is that potential should be treated for what it is. Test cricket should always be about picking the best possible team, at the time the match is taking place. Players who you view - justifiably, because a good judge of the game should be able to judge potential - as having promise should indeed have an eye kept on them, but there is no way you should use a (let's be honest) flimsy judgement on someone's potential to influence your selectorial decisions. You should use whatever is in your power to attempt to nurture that potential until it comes to fruition, then pick the player for the top level.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It's really ridiculously ironic that you criticise me for putting accross opinion as fact and do that yourself with the "his preposterous idea" stuff in this very post.

& yet no one demurred from my suggestion. Fancy that, eh?

Beyond that and we're really into the realms of what actually consistutes "knowledge" and how it's possible to know anything. The idea that selecting a player who then performs is an error is so patently counter-intuitive I think one can fairly say it is preposterous without too much fear of contradiction. One could fairly argue that the reasoning behind the selection may be flawed, but an error? No. I can't imagine anyone other than you claiming it to be.