Originally Posted by BoyBrumby
To use the Oval test last year again as an example one could quite easily propose an argument along the lines of "Bopara was selected for the first four tests, if they thought he was the man for the job then, why change now?" but that's rendered rather redundant when the man who replaced him scores a debut 100. If you disregard the result (which is, ultimately the objective of sport) it becomes impossible to ever make a "right" or "wrong" call.
It is impossible to make a "right" or "wrong" call. That's the point. The "right" decision is the one that is most likely to turn out best for the team, right? We'll never even come close to knowing that most of the time, we can just make a vague estimate. An estimate that will generally be less accurate if all we look at is the result of the decision than it would be if we took other stuff into account. Such as whether the selectorial logic was sound or they just came out with bollocks like Bopara was selected for the first four tests, if they thought he was the man for the job then, why change now?
An acceptance that a decision that turned out badly wasn't necessarily a bad decision isn't the same thing as a stubborn refusal to accept that you might have been wrong.