Taking a punt

[Richard]

Warne was a good selection, he didn't have good domestic performance. Neither did Trescothick or Vaughan really. The problem with us judging selections using your criteria is that we don't have the whole picture. What might look like a bad selection to us because of domestic performance could be an inspired choice from the selectors because they've taken into account temperament/ambition/conditions etc.

Conditions?

Temperament and ambition, and the like, are indeed important. But without skill, none are of the slightest use. It's a selector's job to assess those factors that are not always immediately obvious to the public and marry them to those that are.

Warne when first picked was a bad selection - he did not, yet, have the skill. Vaughan was actually very similar. They were both going to go on and acquire the skill, and were both going to go on and become Test-standard players at a time after their initial Test selection. The mistake that's often made, as I've said already this thread, is that people assume that had they not been picked when they first were that they'd never have been picked at all. This isn't true - Warne and Vaughan were both class players who would have eventually earned their selection, had it not been gifted to them prematurely.

A good selector would have simply waited for the potential that they could observe in a Warne or Vaughan to start coming to fruition, then picked them for Tests. These would have been good selections - and had they come to pass it's very conceivable that Warne and Vaughan would have started to perform in Test cricket much earlier in their careers than they did.

As for Trescothick, well there's really no point me discussing him with virtually anyone, because no-one ever accepts that he is a relatively poor-quality batsman who just got lucky with let-offs at Test level.

 

[four_or_six]

But what if Warne never aquired the skills at domestic level? What if exposing him to international cricket early on in his career had a defining role in his development? As it has for many players.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It's also a wonder you've never brought out the patronising crap for this before now. Because I've been using that phrase, on the forums, for years now. Yes, indeed, many selectors do think they know better than the game -

Name one. In fact name "many". & define "knowing better than the game" while you're at it.

You're very keen on these gnomic pronouncements, but they don't actually mean very much.

Again, well done in reading something that's not there. What I actually said was averages are the fundamental basic (not just banal career averages, naturally) and that no selector ever has any business to ignore them. I also said, on a separate matter, that if the pool of talent is relatively shallow, the public's misguided "there must be someone better out there" notions are what's wrong, not the selectors who keep faith with what they know is the best available.

So, what are you suggesting if not using the the averages? & what have I read that's not there? Please tell me if you're going to accuse me.

Anyway, yes, being a selector should be a pretty simple job, and it's those who overcomplicate it (that's most, BTW) who make it as error-strewn as it is. There are, as I've said ad nauseum, a good few CW posters who'd do a far better job. Goes without saying that it's unlikely you'd be amongst them though.

Ouch. Hitting me where it hurts: my selectorial acumen.

I don't pretend to be an expert, nor do I have the ****ing arrogance to suggest I know better than men who are paid for their judgement. However I'm man enough to admit when someone's made a call that wasn't obvious and it's paid off. You persist with this facile delusion that it's an "error" based on no more than it not being what you would do.

&, for the record, you saying something ad nauseum doesn't add weight to any argument, so please stop using the phrase or any synonyms of it in that horribly self-satisfied way of yours as tho it does.

 

[Richard]

But what if Warne never aquired the skills at domestic level? What if exposing him to international cricket early on in his career had a defining role in his development? As it has for many players.

It hasn't though. That's a myth. Warne acquired the skills because he was always going to. He never, ever particularly bowled well at Australian domestic level even thereafter. However, if he'd been forced to do so because that was the only way he was going to get picked for Australia, I can't quite shake the feeling that he just might have done so. He was far, far too good to just bowl away for an average of 35 in Shield cricket for 15 years.

No player ever acquires skills through playing international cricket - players acquire skills by working, damn hard, mostly in the nets, and by talking to others who know how to teach them (many of whom are those who've done it themselves in the past). Virtually no skill learning is done on the field of play, domestic, international or anywhere else. The only concern when on the field is bowling the next ball and playing the next ball.

 

[four_or_six]

It hasn't though. That's a myth. Warne acquired the skills because he was always going to. He never, ever particularly bowled well at Australian domestic level even thereafter. However, if he'd been forced to do so because that was the only way he was going to get picked for Australia, I can't quite shake the feeling that he just might have done so. He was far, far too good to just bowl away for an average of 35 in Shield cricket for 15 years.

No player ever acquires skills through playing international cricket - players acquire skills by working, damn hard, mostly in the nets, and by talking to others who know how to teach them (many of whom are those who've done it themselves in the past). Virtually no skill learning is done on the field of play, domestic, international or anywhere else. The only concern when on the field is bowling the next ball and playing the next ball.

Totally 100% dispute this. I think playing against better players can improve your game.

 

[Richard]

Name one. In fact name "many". & define "knowing better than the game" while you're at it.

You're very keen on these gnomic pronouncements, but they don't actually mean very much.

I can't really be bothered to go through every selection panel of the last 20 years, but every single one has been guilty of it at some point - some merely less regularly than others. I've already defined "knowing better than the game" in the previous post.

So, what are you suggesting if not using the the averages? & what have I read that's not there? Please tell me if you're going to accuse me.

I'm suggesting that selectors looking at averages and players being at fault are not connected, as you tried to draw a connecting line between them.

Ouch. Hitting me where it hurts: my selectorial acumen.

I don't pretend to be an expert, nor do I have the ****ing arrogance to suggest I know better than men who are paid for their judgement. However I'm man enough to admit when someone's made a call that wasn't obvious and it's paid off. You persist with this facile delusion that it's an "error" based on no more than it not being what you would do.

I also actually credit those who make calls that aren't obvious when they pay-off; I just don't do it when they don't (and don't is far more regular than do).

I do have the arrogance to suggest I know better than those who're paid to do a job, because, well, I do know better, and I've never seen the point in false modesty. I also suggest there are plenty of others who know better as well, because, again, they do. That's nothing to do with arrogance or modesty, but it's the same thing - telling it like it is.

That someone is employed to do something does not mean that there is no-one who could do the job better. It's ridiculous to suggest that because something is one's profession that they are always going to be better at it than an amateur.

&, for the record, you saying something ad nauseum doesn't add weight to any argument, so please stop using the phrase or any synonyms of it in that horribly self-satisfied way of yours as tho it does.

I use it with the regularity I do because a handful of people are prone to fail to notice, so I emphasise their failures by using it.

 

[Richard]

Totally 100% dispute this. I think playing against better players can improve your game.

How can it possibly do so? The only way to improve your game is to work, damn hard, at it. Almost any player who never nets and only picks-up his bat (or ball) to play matches is never going to amount to a fraction of what he could do by netting and analysing properly. (There are very rare exceptions to this, David Gower being one example.)

Playing against better players can open your eyes to what you need to work on, but it isn't the only way to find-out. Players with nous can easily work-out what they need to do to up their game to international standard by watching others play international cricket, and talking with them. They don't need to have their failings exposed on a scoresheet to realise them. The best players always realise their own failings and correct them before any opposition does.

 

[four_or_six]

How can it possibly do so? The only way to improve your game is to work, damn hard, at it. Almost any player who never nets and only picks-up his bat (or ball) to play matches is never going to amount to a fraction of what he could do by netting and analysing properly. (There are very rare exceptions to this, David Gower being one example.)

Playing against better players can open your eyes to what you need to work on, but it isn't the only way to find-out. Players with nous can easily work-out what they need to do to up their game to international standard by watching others play international cricket, and talking with them. They don't need to have their failings exposed on a scoresheet to realise them. The best players always realise their own failings and correct them before any opposition does.

I guess I'm of the opposite opinion. I can't imagine how you could possibly not learn from the experience.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I can't really be bothered to go through every selection panel of the last 20 years, but every single one has been guilty of it at some point - some merely less regularly than others. I've already defined "knowing better than the game" in the previous post.

So you can't support your own argument. Quelle ****ing surprise! Stroll on, who ever would have thought it?

& you're going to have to show me this definition because blowed if I can see it.

I'm suggesting that selectors looking at averages and players being at fault are not connected, as you tried to draw a connecting line between them.

Well, if they aren't, why use averages at all, then? In fact, might a portion of the blame then come to rest on the selectors' doorsteps then if it isn't the players or the averages fault?

I also actually credit those who make calls that aren't obvious when they pay-off; I just don't do it when they don't (and don't is far more regular than do).

I do have the arrogance to suggest I know better than those who're paid to do a job, because, well, I do know better, and I've never seen the point in false modesty. I also suggest there are plenty of others who know better as well, because, again, they do. That's nothing to do with arrogance or modesty, but it's the same thing - telling it like it is.

That someone is employed to do something does not mean that there is no-one who could do the job better. It's ridiculous to suggest that because something is one's profession that they are always going to be better at it than an amateur.

I use it with the regularity I do because a handful of people are prone to fail to notice, so I emphasise their failures by using it.

Calling Collingwood's selection "an error" flat out contradicts this.

As for the rest; thanks. Beautifully illustrates what a conceited fool you are far better than any meagre efforts on my part.

Hopefully you'll grow up one day, Richard.

 

[Richard]

I guess I'm of the opposite opinion. I can't imagine how you could possibly not learn from the experience.

I'm not saying you can't learn from the experience. I'm saying that particular experience isn't neccessary to learn the lessons you'll learn from it. There are other ways of learning that don't involve weakening your team for a short time.

 

[Richard]

So you can't support your own argument. Quelle ****ing surprise! Stroll on, who ever would have thought it?

Actually I can, and did. I said that every single selection panel has been guilty of it, to varying extents. I don't need to give examples, because it applies to all.

& you're going to have to show me this definition because blowed if I can see it.

Yes, indeed, many selectors do think they know better than the game - the game is the best judge of how good a player is, not a selector. Too often a selector picks a player based on potential, when what a good selector should do is wait for the potential that they can observe to start coming to fruition, then pick the player for Tests.

Well, if they aren't, why use averages at all, then? In fact, might a portion of the blame then come to rest on the selectors' doorsteps then if it isn't the players or the averages fault?

How on Earth can something be the fault of an average? It's a statistic, it's a completely inanimate concept (not even an object).

Let's do this nice and slowly: selectors' jobs are to pick the best team available. If they pick the best team available and it's not good enough, then the fault is with the players, not the selectors. If they pick a team lesser than the best and it's not good enough then that's the fault of both players and selectors. And if they pick a team lesser than the best team and it still does the job, that doesn't mean the selectors haven't made errors.

Calling Collingwood's selection "an error" flat out contradicts this.

Actually it doesn't. Collingwood's Test selection was an error. That doesn't mean that I don't actually credit those who make calls that aren't obvious when they pay-off. Collingwood's selection simply isn't such a thing.

As for the rest; thanks. Beautifully illustrates what a conceited fool you are far better than any meagre efforts on my part.

Actually it doesn't - it illustrates your inability to see that I'm a better judge of the game, and people, than you are.

Are we done with the silly I-can-put-down-better-than-you crap now? 'Cos I don't imagine any mods are going to be best pleased with either of us if it continues much longer.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I guess I'm of the opposite opinion. I can't imagine how you could possibly not learn from the experience.

Exactly.

The perfect illustration of this is Matthew Hoggard. He came over with a decent record in 02/03, and got spanked from ear to ear on pretty flat decks against a batting line-up that could exploit such conditions better than most.

Then four years later he comes back, and on one of the flattest pitches in memory takes a seven wicket haul. Without that experience of what it's like at the highest level against the best, Hoggard would never have been prepared for that tour in the same way. He would have continued doing what worked best for him in domestic cricket, and transferring that into international cricket.

It is only by experiencing that next step up that one can get an understanding of exactly what they are lacking to make it at that next step.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Actually I can, and did. I said that every single selection panel has been guilty of it, to varying extents. I don't need to give examples, because it applies to all.

That wasn't a definition. It's meaningless padding: "the game is the best judge of how good a player is, not a selector"? You utterly fail to address how or why "the game" knows better.

& if you think this:

How on Earth can something be the fault of an average? It's a statistic, it's a completely inanimate concept (not even an object).

Then how can you maintain "the game" "knows" better than selectors. What is "the game" but a concept or an idea?

Let's do this nice and slowly: selectors' jobs are to pick the best team available. If they pick the best team available and it's not good enough, then the fault is with the players, not the selectors. If they pick a team lesser than the best and it's not good enough then that's the fault of both players and selectors. And if they pick a team lesser than the best team and it still does the job, that doesn't mean the selectors haven't made errors.

I actually agree; it's your bizarre defintion of what constitutes the best team that I take umbrage with.

Actually it doesn't. Collingwood's Test selection was an error. That doesn't mean that I don't actually credit those who make calls that aren't obvious when they pay-off. Collingwood's selection simply isn't such a thing.

Crap. & double crap, because you do no such thing. You maintain, in the face of all evidence and reason, that the way you see things is correct and, when you're proved wrong, maintain you were right because the other party made the call for the wrong reason.

Actually it doesn't - it illustrates your inability to see that I'm a better judge of the game, and people, than you are.

Are we done with the silly I-can-put-down-better-than-you crap now? 'Cos I don't imagine any mods are going to be best pleased with either of us if it continues much longer.

I make no claims as to be a great judge of character or the game. I'm a wise enough fool to know my limitations.

You're so blinded by your own arrogance you don't realise how foolish you appear in the eyes of others.

 

[Richard]

Exactly.

The perfect illustration of this is Matthew Hoggard. He came over with a decent record in 02/03, and got spanked from ear to ear on pretty flat decks against a batting line-up that could exploit such conditions better than most.

Then four years later he comes back, and on one of the flattest pitches in memory takes a seven wicket haul. Without that experience of what it's like at the highest level against the best, Hoggard would never have been prepared for that tour in the same way. He would have continued doing what worked best for him in domestic cricket, and transferring that into international cricket.

It is only by experiencing that next step up that one can get an understanding of exactly what they are lacking to make it at that next step.

This is just wrong, because Hoggard may have come over with a semi-acceptable record in 2002/03 but the reality was he was a poor Test bowler who only had a less-than-terrible record because circumstances had conspired in his favour. Anyone who watched his whole career rather than just the series' against their own team could tell that.

Hoggard went from poor to pretty decent in 2004, 4 years after making his Test debut and 2-and-a-half after becoming established in the side. Why that transformation was made, who knows, but it had absolutely nothing to do with playing international cricket. Hoggard has always been a very smart bowler and would have been under absolutely no illusions about the fact that he wasn't capable of doing some things. He's also always been an assiduous worker. But it was only in 2004 that he actually gained the capability to bowl well at Test level.

 

[Richard]

That wasn't a definition. It's meaningless padding: "the game is the best judge of how good a player is, not a selector"? You utterly fail to address how or why "the game" knows better.

& if you think this:

Then how can you maintain "the game" "knows" better than selectors. What is "the game" but a concept or an idea?

The game is what happens - and has happened - in a cricket match. It's a human's job to understand why this has happened and be able to realise just what has happened. Humans can make errors doing this - and regularly do - but the game does not. The game merely "is"; humans "do".

Crap. & double crap, because you do no such thing. You maintain, in the face of all evidence and reason, that the way you see things is correct and, when you're proved wrong, maintain you were right because the other party made the call for the wrong reason.

I maintain that the way I see things is correct because I believe it is. If I believed it wasn't, then clearly, I'd alter the way I see things. You simply refuse to acknowledge that there are certain things that it's not possible to "prove wrong" on, so continue to try to, purely because you would like to be able to.

It's not possible to prove wrong that Collingwood had a poor-moderate record at First-Class level when picked for Tests and thus no case to play Tests. The fact that Collingwood did get picked to play Tests and turned-out to be good enough to do so doesn't alter the fact that his case to do so was non-existent.

I make no claims as to be a great judge of character or the game. I'm a wise enough fool to know my limitations.

You're so blinded by your own arrogance you don't realise how foolish you appear in the eyes of others.

I realise how foolish I appear in the eyes of the likes of you, but frankly, I don't give a damn, because the likes of you mean nothing to me. There's plenty of people who actually know me well who profer a different opinion of me to you and which fits in much more accurately with what I believe about myself.

And believe it or not, I actually know myself far better than you do. So do a great deal of others.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The game is what happens - and has happened - in a cricket match. It's a human's job to understand why this has happened and be able to realise just what has happened. Humans can make errors doing this - and regularly do - but the game does not. The game merely "is"; humans "do".

You're getting gnomic again, Richard.

So if a human selects a player who's a great fielder, bowls decentish medium pace, has played well in limited overs internationals & has a solid, if limited, technique and said player then procedes to average more in tests than in first class cricket wouldn't any reasonable person be justified in saying the selector has made a call that's been borne out by "the game"?

I maintain that the way I see things is correct because I believe it is. If I believed it wasn't, then clearly, I'd alter the way I see things. You simply refuse to acknowledge that there are certain things that it's not possible to "prove wrong" on, so continue to try to, purely because you would like to be able to.

It's not possible to prove wrong that Collingwood had a poor-moderate record at First-Class level when picked for Tests and thus no case to play Tests. The fact that Collingwood did get picked to play Tests and turned-out to be good enough to do so doesn't alter the fact that his case to do so was non-existent.

See above post.

There were very solid cricketing reasons to pick Collingwood. The case wasn't "non-existent".

That's QED.

I realise how foolish I appear in the eyes of the likes of you, but frankly, I don't give a damn, because the likes of you mean nothing to me. There's plenty of people who actually know me well who profer a different opinion of me to you and which fits in much more accurately with what I believe about myself.

And believe it or not, I actually know myself far better than you do. So do a great deal of others.

I don't believe that for one second.

If you didn't care you wouldn't waste your time replying.

You're too old for the adolescent arrogance now, mate. Time to grow up.

 

[Richard]

You're getting gnomic again, Richard.

So if a human selects a player who's a great fielder, bowls decentish medium pace, has played well in limited overs internationals & has a solid, if limited, technique and said player then procedes to average more in tests than in first class cricket wouldn't any reasonable person be justified in saying the selector has made a call that's been borne out by "the game"?

Nope. Because there's absolutely no reason to suspect Collingwood was going to average substantially more in Tests than domestic First-Class cricket. Hardly anyone ever does such a thing.

And much as all of the aforementioned are nice, the ultimate reality is that the most important thing by far is the Test batting average. And if anyone expected Collingwood to do well in Tests as a specialist batsman, they were making expectations that were unrealistic. That these expectations have proved to come to pass does not mean they were right to be held. Because all evidence - before the event, not after - pointed in the other direction.

I don't believe that for one second.

If you didn't care you wouldn't waste your time replying.

You're too old for the adolescent arrogance now, mate. Time to grow up.

I reply to anything and everything, I'd imagine you'd have noticed that by now. Do you really think I believe I am going to regain your respect, or desire any more to have it? I haven't cared what you think of me for a fair while now, not since you went psycho for no apparent reason in early-2008. You have a clear and obvious prejudice against me, which was (with the benefit of hindsight) pretty much always there in an undercurrent but has been in full flow for the last year-and-a-bit.

I don't believe anyone is too old for arrogance, because I don't see the point in false modesty, as I say. I tell it like I see it, and if that means saying I know better than someone else, so be it.

 

[four_or_six]

Nope. Because there's absolutely no reason to suspect Collingwood was going to average substantially more in Tests than domestic First-Class cricket. Hardly anyone ever does such a thing.

Strauss, Prior, Vaughan... Trescothick...

 

[BoyBrumby]

Nope. Because there's absolutely no reason to suspect Collingwood was going to average substantially more in Tests than domestic First-Class cricket. Hardly anyone ever does such a thing.

And much as all of the aforementioned are nice, the ultimate reality is that the most important thing by far is the Test batting average. And if anyone expected Collingwood to do well in Tests as a specialist batsman, they were making expectations that were unrealistic. That these expectations have proved to come to pass does not mean they were right to be held. Because all evidence - before the event, not after - pointed in the other direction.

As I said:

You maintain, in the face of all evidence and reason, that the way you see things is correct and, when you're proved wrong, maintain you were right because the other party made the call for the wrong reason.

You really are beyond the reach of any satirist, Richard. Your internet persona would be positively Swiftian if it were a put on.

I reply to anything and everything, I'd imagine you'd have noticed that by now. Do you really think I believe I am going to regain your respect, or desire any more to have it? I haven't cared what you think of me for a fair while now, not since you went psycho for no apparent reason in early-2008. You have a clear and obvious prejudice against me, which was (with the benefit of hindsight) pretty much always there in an undercurrent but has been in full flow for the last year-and-a-bit.

I don't believe anyone is too old for arrogance, because I don't see the point in false modesty, as I say. I tell it like I see it, and if that means saying I know better than someone else, so be it.

It isn't prejudice. It would be prejudice if I'd taken a dislike to your style of posting before I knew your work.

It's my balanced and considered opinion that you come off as an idiot.

 

[Richard]

Strauss, Prior, Vaughan... Trescothick...

Vaughan doesn't in the time in question, merely beforehand. Strauss doesn't at all, averages low-40s in both. Prior's Test average is obviously (frankly obviously to anyone with two eyes) going to come down, though he could yet make a Test-standard batsman, although I remain sceptical.

And as I say, Trescothick simply had more let-offs than virtually anyone has ever had, and that's why he was successful at Test level. I presume the story wasn't the same at domestic level. Even of late, he's suddenly started to produce the goods.

Collingwood is in a tiny club indeed in being a relative domestic failure but international success.