Haha that made me chuckle.
Think you're right. My reading is he meant poor starts to test careers.
There's nothing especially wrong in what he says, other than that he sometimes takes it a little too far for me. I would tend to assume that most players will take a few games to adjust to test cricket however ready they are for selection, whereas Dicko sees not playing well in one's first few games as a sign of being underprepared.
Gatt was similar wasn't he? Obviously not as good but he took ages to get his first test ton
So it would seem, yes. I have to be honest and say my memory doesn't quite go back far enough to know if Gatt was dropped before he made his maiden century, but he always had a very correct batting style which probably pleased any purists on the panel and I imagine being the captain of the dominant county didn't harm his chances either. I think pretty much every England-qualifed Middlesex player (except poor old Yosser Hughes) got a go in the test side in the 80s at some point.
Spot on for my money.
Yes he was. It was a very uncomfortable time at the dinner table (from Waugh's book).
I often wonder though, considering the horrendous proportion of wrong decisions selectors make, whether someone armed with nothing but numbers would actually have a higher success rate.
Frankly one suspects a blind, incontinent drunk sticking a pin randomly into the counties' squads might have a higher success rate too.
Pakistan doesn't deserve great credit for taking punts because a large proportion of them have failed. This is different from Imran Khan who gave chances to Wasim, had faith in a young Inzamam. Taking punts have a chance of failure but it is not merely luck when punts succeed. It is creditable and due appreciation must be bestowed on those who gave the punt.
In poker terms, making a bad bet means you made a bad bet whether you win or not. Thinking otherwise is the fastest way to losing your money. By definition, a longshot means most in their position will not succeed. So you keep throwing enough bodies, and one will stick - and lo' and behold - you're a genius.
Everyone remembers Hick and Ramps because they're the exception rather than the rule. Their continued failure had nothing to do with selectorial incompetence and everything to do with England being at an all-time low with regards to its overall cricketing quality. It's not as though Hick and Ramps were underperforming at a time when hordes of English cricketers with inept FC records were tearing Australia new orifices every two years. They were two of many English batsmen who weren't good enough for test cricket, and only more notable than any of the others because they happened to also be excellent at county cricket.
This is not a poker game though. This is cricket where you have to identify talent. That talent may have initial failures but if you believe the talent is there, there is no harm persisting for a while.
They're exceptional only is as much as their county records are so very good. Lots of other players have been called up based on county form and have been found short at the top. One could point to Ed Smith, Jon Lewis, Ian Ward, Rob Key, Jimmy Ormond or Owais himself. All were "demanding" selection with their FC form, but none really convinced.
