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?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.
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.But why not just get out the stats from the season and pick the team from that?
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.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).
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"?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.
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.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
Quel dommage - I suddenly had the idea there might be a raft of stats I'd never seenHere 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.
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.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.
Not to defend the FCA (God forbid ) but if we knew the FCA and their real average then we could also see which players punish opponents the most for their mistakes.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.
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.
The exact definition of what constitutes a let off is open to interpretation somewhat too. Apart from the obvious ones of course.Not to defend the FCA (God forbid ) 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.
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.The exact definition of what constitutes a let off is open to interpretation somewhat too.
Rich doesn't accept that those pieces of luck count- nor do play+misses, inside edges past the stumps or false shots.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.
Vaughan was pretty decent in this time, but more than not of these innings followed this pattern: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.
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.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.
I'd venture as far as to say the selectors understand how the numbers work.