Taking a punt

[GIMH]

As I say - it's possible that error isn't an appropriate word. I'm talking about a case where someone has got something wrong - thus, are at fault - and should still be recognised to have gotten something wrong even if this getting-wrong ended-up paying dividends.

If a clock has stopped someone has gotten something wrong, by not replacing the battery - even though there will be times (2 minutes per day) where this doesn't actually cause any inaccuracy (any "error", you might say). Regardless of this, someone is at fault, same way selectors are still at fault if they make a selectorial decision not based on the soundest possible reasoning.

So - whoever's decision it was that Colly should be picked. They were at fault. It was all their fault. The centuries he's scored, they were the selector's fault. That sounds even worse than error.

 

[Richard]

It's their fault that he was picked when he should not have been. It's, clearly, no-one's fault that he's done well at Test level of late, because fault is only present when something "bad" has happened. If something "good" has happened, it's to the person responsible's credit.

 

[Richard]

I can accept that argument in small doses only.

In reality there are times when you need to select your best and most proven players. That means an Ashes series and a World Cup. At other times, selectors should feel more free to experiment.

Test cricket is a unique environment and it takes some getting used to - and all Test players do a fair amount of learning on the job.

Some players will thrive (and outperform their FC records) while others will not make it at all. Performances in first class cricket do not allow you to predict accurately who will and who won't succeed in Test cricket.

Therefore you need to blood players in the knowledge that they may, at least initially, fail, so as to find out who's up to the job, and so as to give them experience of Test cricket in order that they can develop into the best possible Test player who will stay at the top for the longest possible time.

I don't agree that there's ever a time in Test cricket when you should not select your best possible XI. To use a Test series to build for another Test series makes a mockery of the whole concept to me.

Good performances in First-Class are not, by any stretch, a guarantee of a successful Test player - they are merely a suggestion of a possibility. Poor performances in First-Class cricket, however, are an almost certain certificate that a player has next to no chance of success in Test cricket. The likes of Collingwood are in a tiny minority, as I said a while back in this thread. The idea that "performances in first class cricket do not allow you to predict accurately who will and who won't succeed in Test cricket" to me simply lacks logic. The rules of the two games are exactly the same, so therefore if you can do well at the highest level you can and almost certainly will do well at the next level down.

Of course you need to accept that players may initially struggle to come to terms with Test cricket, but that's not, in my book, the remotest of excuses for picking a player when you know he's overwhelmingly likely to struggle initially. You should pick a player only once you believe he has it in him to succeed, then and there, and if he fails it should be a disappointment (though not, of course, one that should make you instantly lose faith).

As for learning on the job - plenty of players learn during their Test careers, but precious few ever learn a great deal on the field, because as almost any cricketer will tell you, the field is not the place for learning, the field is the place for playing and concentrating only on the next delivery and how to bowl\play it.

 

[zaremba]

I don't agree that there's ever a time in Test cricket when you should not select your best possible XI. To use a Test series to build for another Test series makes a mockery of the whole concept to me.

Well let's agree to disagree on that one.

The idea that "performances in first class cricket do not allow you to predict accurately who will and who won't succeed in Test cricket" to me simply lacks logic.

I don't think it lacks logic; I think it's a fact. There are many examples of Test players who have better Test records than their FC stats would suggest, and vice-versa. And if you picked 2 players with equally impressive FC records, there's a pretty good chance that one might fly in Test cricket while the other will fail.

Of course you need to accept that players may initially struggle to come to terms with Test cricket, but that's not, in my book, the remotest of excuses for picking a player when you know he's overwhelmingly likely to struggle initially.

Straw man alert. No-one's suggesting you should pick someone when you know they're going to fail.

the field is not the place for learning, the field is the place for playing and concentrating only on the next delivery and how to bowl\play it.

So your theory is that you don't learn about how to play Test cricket when you are actually playing Test cricket? With respect, I think this is one of your weirder ones, Richard.

And do you really believe that any Test cricketer but does nothing but concentrate on the next delivery?

 

[GIMH]

It's their fault that he was picked when he should not have been. It's, clearly, no-one's fault that he's done well at Test level of late, because fault is only present when something "bad" has happened. If something "good" has happened, it's to the person responsible's credit.

Well this is all a bit mixed up.

Then selector picked Collingwood. You deem this as bad. So it was their 'fault'. But he scored runs. This is good. So it's to their credit surely?

You're contradicting yourself hugely. Like many I can see merit in the general theory that you are promoting but not how you are describing events.

 

[Richard]

It's the selectors' fault that Collingwood was picked, because there was no reasonable reason to think that'd be successful. It's to Collingwood's credit that he's upped his game and played better in a few recent Tests than he probably ever had at domestic level.

 

[Richard]

I don't think it lacks logic; I think it's a fact. There are many examples of Test players who have better Test records than their FC stats would suggest, and vice-versa. And if you picked 2 players with equally impressive FC records, there's a pretty good chance that one might fly in Test cricket while the other will fail.

There aren't "many", there are a tiny few. Almost all successful Test cricketers have also been successful at the domestic-First-Class level. It's very true that if you've got two successful domestic players then it's very conceivable that one will succeed and the other fail, and that's exactly where good selection in looking at things besides figures (but not "looking beyond" them) comes in and why those who use the "you could just get a computer to do selection" are talking nonsense.

Straw man alert. No-one's suggesting you should pick someone when you know they're going to fail.

If you pick someone on potential rather than ability, that's almost precisely what you're doing. And as you can see, I didn't say "know they're going to fail", because you can never know how someone's going to go. I said "know there's a strong likelihood" (or words to that effect).

So your theory is that you don't learn about how to play Test cricket when you are actually playing Test cricket? With respect, I think this is one of your weirder ones, Richard.

The point is that you don't have to. I'm not saying no-one ever has, but merely that it is not a neccessity, the way some claim it is.

And do you really believe that any Test cricketer but does nothing but concentrate on the next delivery?

When the bowler's running in, yup. Obviously between deliveries you've got to think longer-term within that match, but there's no way you should be trying to learn new shots or deliveries in the middle of a Test.

 

[zaremba]

there's no way you should be trying to learn new shots or deliveries in the middle of a Test.

Agreed. BUT that's only a relatively small part of the picture. You need a hell of a lot more than a wide range of shots or deliveries in order to make it in Test cricket, and conversely many players who lack a full range of technical skills have succeeded in Tests.

What makes Test cricket different is the mental test that it provides. And the skill to master that mental element isn't one that can reliably be honed at First Class level, playing in front of 2 dogs and a donkey at Colwyn Bay. The only way to do it is to be immersed in Test cricket itself. That said, you of course do stand a better chance of succeeding with the mental side if the technical side is in good working order.

 

[GIMH]

It's the selectors' fault that Collingwood was picked, because there was no reasonable reason to think that'd be successful. It's to Collingwood's credit that he's upped his game and played better in a few recent Tests than he probably ever had at domestic level.

And this is where it's flawed, because nobody in their right mind would say it was a bad thing that Colly was picked and ergo would not say anyone was at fault. It's ridiculous.

 

[Richard]

Collingwood should not have been picked for Test cricket. It's as simple as that. Therefore, those who are responsible are at fault.

Whatever happened from then on is totally irrelevant, because the selectors had no power to influence that.

 

[Richard]

Agreed. BUT that's only a relatively small part of the picture. You need a hell of a lot more than a wide range of shots or deliveries in order to make it in Test cricket, and conversely many players who lack a full range of technical skills have succeeded in Tests.

What makes Test cricket different is the mental test that it provides. And the skill to master that mental element isn't one that can reliably be honed at First Class level, playing in front of 2 dogs and a donkey at Colwyn Bay. The only way to do it is to be immersed in Test cricket itself. That said, you of course do stand a better chance of succeeding with the mental side if the technical side is in good working order.

It's not something that can be mastered full-stop. You either have it or you don't. You'll only find-out whether someone has it by picking them for Tests.

And if you don't have the physical aspect, there's little sense even finding-out whether someone has the mental aspect, because the right mentality is useless without a suitable technique and shot-selection.

And BTW, the mental aspect (ie, the vastly increased audience and scrutiny) isn't the only thing that makes Test cricket different from domestic First-Class cricket. By nature, opposition is going to be stronger, but domestic First-Class cricket is far from something any man and a dog can play either.

 

[GIMH]

Collingwood should not have been picked for Test cricket. It's as simple as that. Therefore, those who are responsible are at fault.

Whatever happened from then on is totally irrelevant, because the selectors had no power to influence that.

The game is played on grass, not paper. I give up on this issue, we will never agree, but it's pretty clear that nobody was 'at fault' because there is no blame to apportion

 

[Howsie]

Tim Southee, pretty big punt that one. Poor kid New Zealand has probaly ruined his carrer though.

 

[Howsie]

Tim Southee, pretty big punt that one. Poor kid New Zealand has probaly ruined his carrer though.

It started off pretty well, he was pretty good in the ODI's in England. But yeah I don't think he will ever be as good as he should of been. His action has changed a lot.

 

[Richard]

The game is played on grass, not paper.

I'm aware of that, and I'm not talking about the playing, but the selecting.

 

[Richard]

Tim Southee, pretty big punt that one. Poor kid New Zealand has probaly ruined his carrer though.

Looks like those of us who said his selection at the time it was made was a mistake and didn't change our minds because he had a good game or three early on might just have been right after all.

Southee's selection at the time it was made could do precious little good and always left the possibility open of this happening. Thus, it was a bad, bad decision.

 

[Howsie]

Looks like those of us who said his selection at the time it was made was a mistake and didn't change our minds because he had a good game or three early on might just have been right after all.

Southee's selection at the time it was made could do precious little good and always left the possibility open of this happening. Thus, it was a bad, bad decision.

Three months ago I would not of agreed with that as he was one of the best bowlers in New Zealand domestic cricket. But after what happened to him against India, I think he could be in a little bit of trouble. His action just looked completely different and he didn't appear to have any confindence. My plan for him would be for New Zealand not to pick him for atleast two years, because the last thing he needs is to play a game here and thier for NZ. That will not do him any good at all.

 

[Howsie]

Didn't Dennis Lillee say Tim Southee was the best young bowler he had seen in years, thats pretty high praise. I don't what he really saw in him though, he isn't that great. Just another 130kmph bowler who swings the ball.

Ahh I found it.............

Southee's time has come - sport | Stuff.co.nz

But then again Lillee did say Mitchell Johnson was the best 17 year old he had ever seen, so maybe Southee will come right just like MJ did.

 

[Howsie]

Didn't Dennis Lillee say Tim Southee was the best young bowler he had seen in years, thats pretty high praise. I don't what he really saw in him though, he isn't that great. Just another 130kmph bowler who swings the ball.

Ahh I found it.............

Southee's time has come - sport | Stuff.co.nz

But then again Lillee did say Mitchell Johnson was the best 17 year old he had ever seen, so maybe Southee will come right just like MJ did.

I'm not really a big fan of the kid either, he is alright and could get better but I don't ever see him being "World Class". Oh and by the way, Southee is quicker then 130, try 135 to 140.

I didn't know Lillee said that about him either, hmmm maybe he sees something that I haven't.

 

[Howsie]

Didn't Dennis Lillee say Tim Southee was the best young bowler he had seen in years, thats pretty high praise. I don't what he really saw in him though, he isn't that great. Just another 130kmph bowler who swings the ball.

Ahh I found it.............

Southee's time has come - sport | Stuff.co.nz

But then again Lillee did say Mitchell Johnson was the best 17 year old he had ever seen, so maybe Southee will come right just like MJ did.

I think he was better when he made is debut then what he was a month ago. He has the talent there is no doubt about that, he was the leading wicket taker in domestic cricket when he was only 18/19. But he has lost it big time, the selectors have really screwed him over I feel. And although most people think he is medium pace, I have seen him clock up speeds up to 144 kmph an hour.