• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Taking a punt

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't think it's a surprise that a bowler like Southee is struggling. Witht he amount of Test cricket NZ play (or don't), it's a bit difficult to get through enough overs to be a consistent threat in Tests.
 

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It isn't. It's testimony to their inability to differentiate between ability and potential. Selectors are there to pick the best possible team at the time the game's on, not pick the best team for 2 years' time.

And England between 1991 and 1995/96 had many worse batsmen than Mark Ramprakash play Test cricket. Many of them. And in all honesty, Ramprakash (again) would've been a better selection than many of them.

And of course Ramprakash from 1997 to 2001 wasn't that bad.
No, no, no it's testimony to their ability to do exactly the opposite. Obviously there's an element of guesswork involved. But why not just get out the stats from the season and pick the team from that?

This is silly.
 

Flem274*

123/5
I can see Richards logic. If you select a batsman that averages 25 in FC cricket and he ends up averaging 35 in tests after a reasonable amount of games, whilst the selector should be acknowledged that he saw the guy could do more than his record suggested, its still very debateable whether he should have been picked ahead of the guy averaging 45 and who has played 0 tests.

There are other circumstances as well, but I agree with Richard that players should have half decent FC records before they're picked.

imo the criteria should be (for a batsman)

average of over 35 (prefferably 40)

Has played a decent amount of games

has shown good technique and shot selection

has succeeded to an appropriate level against all kinds of bowler

has shown mental strength

For a bowler:

Has a decent amount of games, good record etc

Has shown attributes (swing, seam, pace or something) that makes them likely to succeed

Hasn't panicked when under the hammer

those are just a few things that should be looked at.

Re: Southee: He was picked because Hadlee liked him (rightly so) also esteemed coaches like Lillee had seen in him another great fast medium bowler like McGrath, Clark, Pollock, etc

he might not bowl especially quick, but pace (unless you're pathetically slow) shouldn't be a barrier to your selection if you can make a ball move and have some accuracy.

Ideally test seamers need two or three of movement (seam or swing), variation, accuracy and pace to be worthy of being picked. Southee at time of selection had shown the ability to move the ball, variations and accuracy.

I was against his selection based on age (Ken Rutherford and others are great examples of what you dont do) and experience, not on what he could do.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
I'm pretty glad that Duncan Fletcher took a punt on Marcus Trescothick in 2000. He had a FC career batting average of about 30 at the time, and was playing as an all-rounder for Somerset. Fletcher saw something in him, which was confirmed in his first few ODIs, and he became one of England's most prolific batsmen of recent years.

Now you might regard this as luck on Fletcher's part (the stopped clock telling the right time), luck on Trescothick's part (cue Richard trying to tell us all that if he hadn't been so jammy Trescothick would have had a Test average of 12), or whatever - but I regard it as a vindication of the "punt" taken by Fletcher. Trescothick demonstrated to everyone over the years what Fletcher had seen when he selected him, despite a thoroughly lame FC record.

A similar story re Michael Vaughan whose FC average was pretty woeful when first selected for England (and even now, in fact). (cue Richard trying to tell us all that MPV has never been a good Test opener).
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
But why not just get out the stats from the season and pick the team from that?
It always comes back to this, for those who advocate "you must look beyond numbers". Simple fact is, there should be one hell of a lot of looking at numbers for selectors. However, numbers need proper interpretation and understanding before they can be of any use either.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I'm pretty glad that Duncan Fletcher took a punt on Marcus Trescothick in 2000. He had a FC career batting average of about 30 at the time, and was playing as an all-rounder for Somerset. Fletcher saw something in him, which was confirmed in his first few ODIs, and he became one of England's most prolific batsmen of recent years.

Now you might regard this as luck on Fletcher's part (the stopped clock telling the right time), luck on Trescothick's part (cue Richard trying to tell us all that if he hadn't been so jammy Trescothick would have had a Test average of 12), or whatever - but I regard it as a vindication of the "punt" taken by Fletcher. Trescothick demonstrated to everyone over the years what Fletcher had seen when he selected him, despite a thoroughly lame FC record.

A similar story re Michael Vaughan whose FC average was pretty woeful when first selected for England (and even now, in fact). (cue Richard trying to tell us all that MPV has never been a good Test opener).
Trescothick has only been successful in Test cricket due to abnormal numbers of let-offs, whether people accept that or not, and Vaughan has never been a good Test opener. And what's more, Vaughan has disappointed as a batsman for far more of his Test career than not, same as he has at domestic level.

Duncan Fletcher was (is) a damn good coach (except when he's telling people to sweep spinners all the time) but he's a terrible judge of a player and was responsible for the selection of any number of utter duds, especially in ODIs, over the heads of better-qualified candidates, some of whom would have done a far better job.

But of course it sounds much better to say he looked beyond numbers successfully in Vaughan and Trescothick's cases. And what's more, the only time that looking beyond numbers actually proved successful was Collingwood, not Trescothick or Vaughan.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
Trescothick has only been successful in Test cricket due to abnormal numbers of let-offs, whether people accept that or not, and Vaughan has never been a good Test opener.
...
And what's more, the only time that looking beyond numbers actually proved successful was Collingwood, not Trescothick or Vaughan.
You're right - Collingwood's another good example. But I'm not sure how you reckon that looking beyond the numbers was not successful in Trescothick's case. Yes I'm familiar with your theory that he's been lucky to score 5,800 Test runs but I fail to see why his selection did not in your view "prove successful"?

Returning to MPV, I want to dwell for a moment on your astonishing claim that "Vaughan has never been a good Test opener".

Opening the batting in a 12-month period from May 2002, Vaughan scored 1,533 Test runs at an average of 76.65 with 7 centuries. The opponents were Sri Lanka, India and Australia. Vaughan was never a good Test opener? I'd say he was a pretty damn good Test opener at that point in time at least. Steve Waugh said he was the best English batsmen he'd played against (better, then, than Gooch, Gower, Atherton, Thorpe, Smith and Stewart).

So please explain to me how you reckon that Vaughan, during that year, was not a good Test opener? Are you really going to pretend that he fluked all those runs? Are you going to claim that all those 3 bowling attacks had a series of off-days over the course of 12 full Test matches?

Your contributions are very often very interesting, but this is one of those completely wacky ones that you sometimes come up with which just make the jaw drop.
 
Last edited:

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Richard I'm sure I have read a post(s) of yours previously where you have said you have seen all but every delivery of Tresco's test career - is his FCA calculated and indeed that of anyone else?

Please bear in mind I've only been here a year - I suspect if I dug through old threads I'd find the answer in which case a link will be fine :)
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Richard I'm sure I have read a post(s) of yours previously where you have said you have seen all but every delivery of Tresco's test career - is his FCA calculated and indeed that of anyone else?

Please bear in mind I've only been here a year - I suspect if I dug through old threads I'd find the answer in which case a link will be fine :)
Here is the problem with FCA which makes it absurd. There are no statistics. Id be moderately interested in any patterns if they can be shown for a large selection of players.

As it is, it is based on the memory of a few players of someone without adequate data to make it relevant.
 
Last edited:

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Here is the problem with FCA with makes it absurd. There are no statistics. Id be moderately interested in any patterns if they can be shown for a large selection of players.

As it is, it is based on the memory of a few players of someone without adequate data to make it relevant.
Quel dommage - I suddenly had the idea there might be a raft of stats I'd never seen
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Here is the problem with FCA which makes it absurd. There are no statistics. Id be moderately interested in any patterns if they can be shown for a large selection of players.

As it is, it is based on the memory of a few players of someone without adequate data to make it relevant.
Pfft. Not the only thing that makes it absurd. Getting out the ball after being dropped is somehow equally useful as making the other team pay with a big one.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Pfft. Not the only thing that makes it absurd. Getting out the ball after being dropped is somehow equally useful as making the other team pay with a big one.
Not to defend the FCA (God forbid :blink:) but if we knew the FCA and their real average then we could also see which players punish opponents the most for their mistakes.

If Player A has FCA of 20 and an overall average of 40 and Player B has a FCA of 30 and an overall average of 35 then we could be uncovering interesting ground.

On its own FCA is meaningless, but it could (and I mean could very loosely) potentially lead to interesting analysis.
 

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It always comes back to this, for those who advocate "you must look beyond numbers". Simple fact is, there should be one hell of a lot of looking at numbers for selectors. However, numbers need proper interpretation and understanding before they can be of any use either.

Numbers need to be factored in with other things, which is where the selectors earn their money. You obviously need to take numbers into account, if you ignored the numbers completely you might pick a guy with a great attitude and good rapport with teammates to open the batting and then find out he's averaging 1.50 in the Richmond 5ths and is actually a bowler. :happy:

I'd venture as far as to say the selectors understand how the numbers work.
 

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Not to defend the FCA (God forbid :blink:) but if we knew the FCA and their real average then we could also see which players punish opponents the most for their mistakes.

If Player A has FCA of 20 and an overall average of 40 and Player B has a FCA of 30 and an overall average of 35 then we could be uncovering interesting ground.

On its own FCA is meaningless, but it could (and I mean could very loosely) potentially lead to interesting analysis.
The exact definition of what constitutes a let off is open to interpretation somewhat too. Apart from the obvious ones of course.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
The exact definition of what constitutes a let off is open to interpretation somewhat too.
Witthout a doubt. Even to the extent that a ball in a gap would have been out if a fielder was positioned there as the batsman isnt in control of that aspect.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Witthout a doubt. Even to the extent that a ball in a gap would have been out if a fielder was positioned there as the batsman isnt in control of that aspect.
Rich doesn't accept that those pieces of luck count- nor do play+misses, inside edges past the stumps or false shots.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Actually I do, but as I've said countless times to those ignorant of the first-chance idea, don't let your ignorance get in the way of a good dissing of the idea. Pretty much every single one of the last 20-or-so posts on the matter displays said ignorance in one way or another.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
You're right - Collingwood's another good example. But I'm not sure how you reckon that looking beyond the numbers was not successful in Trescothick's case. Yes I'm familiar with your theory that he's been lucky to score 5,800 Test runs but I fail to see why his selection did not in your view "prove successful"?

Returning to MPV, I want to dwell for a moment on your astonishing claim that "Vaughan has never been a good Test opener".

Opening the batting in a 12-month period from May 2002, Vaughan scored 1,533 Test runs at an average of 76.65 with 7 centuries. The opponents were Sri Lanka, India and Australia. Vaughan was never a good Test opener? I'd say he was a pretty damn good Test opener at that point in time at least. Steve Waugh said he was the best English batsmen he'd played against (better, then, than Gooch, Gower, Atherton, Thorpe, Smith and Stewart).

So please explain to me how you reckon that Vaughan, during that year, was not a good Test opener? Are you really going to pretend that he fluked all those runs? Are you going to claim that all those 3 bowling attacks had a series of off-days over the course of 12 full Test matches?

Your contributions are very often very interesting, but this is one of those completely wacky ones that you sometimes come up with which just make the jaw drop.
Vaughan was pretty decent in this time, but more than not of these innings followed this pattern:
Get 20 or 30 quickly, give a chance.

Precisely what you don't want in an opener. Of course, many of these chances were dropped\caught-and-given-not-out, so Vaughan went on to score several massive scores. However, that is most certainly not indicative of being a good opener, merely cashing-in on being gifted a start - being a good opener is overwhelmingly about your ability to see-off the new-ball, and Vaughan simply did not do that.

The pitches too were of course flat (the bowling ranged from poor to good) but even so, if he'd been making those scores purely through the calibre of his own play (rather than due to the ineptitude of the fielders\third-Umpires and his ability to cash-in on said ineptitude) then I'd still say he played damn well.

However, he didn't. He played pretty well and was made to look like a superman.

As for what Stephen Waugh said, I couldn't really give a damn. There is absolutely no way that Vaughan in 2002/03 was a patch on Gooch in 1990/91 or 1993. The player who does not say "so-and-so is the best player I've ever seen \ is damn good" when someone's just scored a whole heap of runs against their own team is in a small minority.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Numbers need to be factored in with other things, which is where the selectors earn their money. You obviously need to take numbers into account, if you ignored the numbers completely you might pick a guy with a great attitude and good rapport with teammates to open the batting and then find out he's averaging 1.50 in the Richmond 5ths and is actually a bowler. :happy:

I'd venture as far as to say the selectors understand how the numbers work.
I'd venture to say that not a few of them don't; I'd also venture to say that some don't realise the importance of them because they're too concerned with telling themselves that they know better.
 

Top