Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 350

Thread: Selection errors tally thread

  1. #16
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby View Post
    Jesus. Could someone please explain to Dicko the difference between an error and a difference of opinion?
    If you look deep enough, there's no such thing as an error, merely something almost all opinion converges on (or in the case of an error, against).
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  2. #17
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anyone But England
    Posts
    20,218
    Quote Originally Posted by Clapo View Post
    Wouldn't necessarily mark Huffenpuff down as a selection error seeing as there were/have been reports Clark was struggling to be ready for the match.
    Or, as one of the commentary team suggested, with Lee out then Hilfenhaus is more likely to exploit any swinging conditions than Clark.

  3. #18
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,697
    Personally i think Hilfenhaus over Clark was an excellent decision. For a start, he's a full 10mph faster at the moment. Second, there was plenty of swing around and very little seam. Third, Hilfenhaus is bowling brilliantly at the moment. Fourth, his fitness is a lot less suspect.

    It's not what I'd have done (although I may have felt differently if I had the knowledge the selectors had) but it's still looking like a great call (and very ballsy too, as the reaction on CW demonstrates).
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    The Filth have comfortably the better bowling. But the Gash have the batting. Might be quite good to watch.

  4. #19
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    Personally i think Hilfenhaus over Clark was an excellent decision. For a start, he's a full 10mph faster at the moment.
    Clark was bowling as quickly as I've seen him bowl of times in the Lions game. There is no way Hilfenhaus was bowling at 96mph, nor close to, today.


  5. #20
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,426
    It's not an error, it's that the selectors have knowledge that we, and the world's press don't have, eg how is Clark's fitness, how has he been bowling in the nets, how has Hilfy been bowling etc. Just because something is a 'surprise' to most informed opinion doesn't make it an error.

    And while you can dismiss 'hindsight', the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and so far Hilfy has bowled very well, so no way has this been an error.
    Quote Originally Posted by Irfan
    We may not like you, your filthy rich coffers or your ratbag scum of supporters but by god do we respect you as a football team
    GOOD OLD COLLINGWOOD - PREMIERS IN 2010

    Is Cam White, Is Good.

  6. #21
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt79 View Post
    It's not an error, it's that the selectors have knowledge that we, and the world's press don't have, eg how is Clark's fitness, how has he been bowling in the nets, how has Hilfy been bowling etc. Just because something is a 'surprise' to most informed opinion doesn't make it an error.
    Until we know what they know about Clark's fitness, it's for us to call them out on an error. It's for them to give the info about why it's not an error. If Clark is below the required fitness levels, fair enough, but in order to justify not picking him they need to state this. To date, from what I've heard, they haven't.

    I've maintained all my life that picking someone on net form is pure folly. The nets are a place to improve your game, not to assess how good your game is. Clark bowled damn well in the Lions tour game; Hilfenhaus was, rightly, adjudged to be sufficiently far down the pecking-order to not play.

    The only acceptable reason for Clark's non-selection is that he's not up to the desired fitness levels.
    And while you can dismiss 'hindsight', the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and so far Hilfy has bowled very well, so no way has this been an error.
    I've seen you argue this before. I disagree completely. A selection should be judged on what it has going for it at the time said selection is made, with no consideration given to what happens thereafter because no-one can ever have any means of coming close to knowing that. Otherwise picking Graeme Hick in 1996 would be adjudged to be a mistake, when it quite patently wasn't.

    Hilfenhaus bowling very well is to his full credit, but in no way to the selectors' or indeed anyone else's.
    Last edited by Richard; 08-07-2009 at 05:10 PM.

  7. #22
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,426
    Completely disagree on both your points there. The selectors owe no one any explanation - the only accountability that they are subject to is whether the team they choose plays well. We KNOW they are privy to info we don't have, and the only sensible conclusion is that something in that info led them to prefer one bowler over the other. The only way
    to judge wheter that preference was correct is what the
    preferred player produces.

    As much as we like to play at being selectors from our armchair, in the early stages of a tour we simply don't have the info to do it as well as the selectors, or to condemn them for their calls. It's a bit different on issues of team balance, like taking two or one spinner or five or six batsmen, but even then it's fraught.

  8. #23
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt79 View Post
    Completely disagree on both your points there. The selectors owe no one any explanation - the only accountability that they are subject to is whether the team they choose plays well.
    AFAIC, selectors owe everyone an explanation for everything they do. All jobs are done better when there is maximum accountability. It is up to the selectors to show that they have made an informed choice. Whether the team they choose plays well is something completely and totally outside their power. Only the players can play well.
    We KNOW they are privy to info we don't have, and the only sensible conclusion is that something in that info led them to prefer one bowler over the other. The only way to judge wheter that preference was correct is what the preferred player produces.
    How can this be justified? No-one knows how a player is going to perform. Are you honestly suggesting that if a player performs poorly he was a poor selection and if he performs well he was a good one?

    That's akin to saying that someone who walked into a minefield knowing it was a minefield when he could have walked somewhere he knew wasn't made the right decision just because he happened not to step on one and get blown to bits.
    As much as we like to play at being selectors from our armchair, in the early stages of a tour we simply don't have the info to do it as well as the selectors, or to condemn them for their calls. It's a bit different on issues of team balance, like taking two or one spinner or five or six batsmen, but even then it's fraught.
    I don't accept that the selector always knows better and that the armchair pundit should never criticise. Not at all. That someone is paid to do a job doesn't mean they're always better at it than someone who isn't.

  9. #24
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,697
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    How can this be justified? No-one knows how a player is going to perform. Are you honestly suggesting that if a player performs poorly he was a poor selection and if he performs well he was a good one?
    That's not the case, but there's a massive amount of evidence that can be gained from the results. Like, when the selectors pick Hilfenhaus and he immediately bowls accurate 90mph outswingers all day and picks up two (should have been three) massive, game-changing wickets, you can reasonably assume that he was doing the same in the nets for a few days beforehand.

  10. #25
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,182
    I feel like I'm watching the Family Guy ep on drive-by arguments.
    The Colourphonics

    Bandcamp
    Twitderp

  11. #26
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,697
    Oh, Corey...
    ...
    ...
    ...


    I DISAGREE!

  12. #27
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,182
    **** me, glad someone got it.

  13. #28
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cricket
    Posts
    16,845
    I dont think there should be a debate on whether the selectors picked Hilfenhaus ahead of Clark. Hilfy should have always been Lee's replacement & Clark should have been playing ahead of Hauritz.

  14. #29
    Virat Kohli (c) Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    55,170
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    How can this be justified? No-one knows how a player is going to perform. Are you honestly suggesting that if a player performs poorly he was a poor selection and if he performs well he was a good one?
    I disagree with this. A lot of it depends on what the selectors reasons were. If they had some inkling of what was going to happen, or believed that by selecting this player, such a good result would have the best possibility of happening, and it does happen, than its the right move.

    As unlikely as it is, if Panesar takes 12 wickets, and England win the game, it makes it the right decision
    I don't see how anyone could say to the face of the selectors and say "you were wrong" if that happened.

    Same with Hilfenhaus. At the end of the test, if he's taken 9-for, and been very tight, and Australia win largely because of his bowling, even if Clark was 100% fit, it was the right move... providing that Clark wouldn't have likely done better.

    Its not always hindsight, sometimes its just "wow, they figured this would happen whilst we didn't".

    For the record I wouldn't have done either, but I find it hard to call out the selectors when what they do is proven right. So if it does happen, you can't have a go at them for it.
    Last edited by Jono; 08-07-2009 at 10:24 PM.
    "I am very happy and it will allow me to have lot more rice."

    Eoin Morgan on being given a rice cooker for being Man of the Match in a Dhaka Premier Division game.

  15. #30
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,182

Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •