Selection errors tally thread

[GIMH]

At the end of the day the selectors' job is to pick the team, nothing else, they don't have to justify themselves to us. But they do have info that we don't, and as such when something that seemed odd comes off it shouldn't automatically be assumed to be a fluke.

[Matt79]

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.

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.

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.

as you said, we've been around this a few times, so shan't go on too long - Jono has basically summed up my view pretty well. The real issue IMO is that you have very firm ideas on what a selector should base their selections on, and get disappointed or annoyed when selections are made on other bases. However, most selectors don't share those particular views and neither do I.

Based on their intimate knowledge on the condition, form and abilities of the squad members, which they are uniquely placed to possess, selectors will choose the players they think best match what the team needs. No one ourside the touring squad can really call those decisions errors, because we simply don't have the required info. That's the issue, not whether they are paid and we're not.

And I disagree that the 'more accountability the better' idea. Picking a team to please every hack journo and asshole on CW is a recipe for disaster. Clear, simple accountability to one party on simple criteria will produce the best results. In this case, the Oz selectors are, and should be, only accountable to CA to pick a team that will win the Ashes. If they succeed in that, by definition they've done a good job. The only other criteria is to position the squad to develop well in years to come, which should only be a secondary goal.

[Richard]

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".

No-one figured or will ever figure that something will happen. No-one can ever come remotely close to knowing how someone will perform. All they can do is weigh-up what evidence exists to suggest how someone will perform before the selection is made, and make the selection based on that.

You need more than "some inkling" to make an acceptable selection. Just picking on random gut-feel is not acceptable. Every selection should be based on the soundest possible grounding, and it's been proven time and again that gut feel is not sound reasoning, at all.

How Clark bowled in the Lions game is far more sound reasoning than how Hilfenhaus appeared to bowl in the nets. As, of course, are how the two have bowled in the rest of their careers.

[Richard]

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.

And equally, no-one will know how Clark - if fit to a decent level - might have bowled. He could quite easily have bowled better. No-one is suggesting Hilfenhaus is a hack, merely that there was precious little to no justification for picking him ahead of a fully-fit Clark.

[Uppercut]

How Clark bowled in the Lions game is far more sound reasoning than how Hilfenhaus appeared to bowl in the nets. As, of course, are how the two have bowled in the rest of their careers.

Hilfenhaus played the previous warm-up game that wasn't televised though, I suspect that they gained information on how he was bowling predominantly from that. He bowled very well by all accounts, although at the time I thought that just meant doing his usual trick of getting the ball in the right areas at pace and with swing but not taking any wickets nor looking like taking any wickets.

[Craig]

They interviewed Tim Nielsen just then and he said that they felt that Siddle and Clark were similar bowlers, and they felt Hilfenhaus could get some movement and they wanted to play a spinner. So if they played Hilfenhaus and no Hauritz and then Clark and Siddle would of been too similar.

[Uppercut]

And equally, no-one will know how Clark - if fit to a decent level - might have bowled. He could quite easily have bowled better. No-one is suggesting Hilfenhaus is a hack, merely that there was precious little to no justification for picking him ahead of a fully-fit Clark.

Personally i think Clark would have got something like 12-3-20-0 yesterday. Everyone would say he showed good control, and no one would even question whether Hilfenhaus would have done better.

IMO, the selectors deserve credit for picking the side that they thought would win them the game, not the side that would avoid upsetting a bunch of armchair selectors without half the knowledge that they had.

[Richard]

And I disagree that the 'more accountability the better' idea. Picking a team to please every hack journo and asshole on CW is a recipe for disaster.

That's not the implication and you know it, you've merely manufactured that in order to create a straw-man. The point is that if you make a pick, you should have to give the reasons. Simply mysteriously taking the "aaaahhh, this is the way things must be done" stance is not, in my view, acceptable.

Clear, simple accountability to one party on simple criteria will produce the best results. In this case, the Oz selectors are, and should be, only accountable to CA to pick a team that will win the Ashes. If they succeed in that, by definition they've done a good job. The only other criteria is to position the squad to develop well in years to come, which should only be a secondary goal.

No, the criteria should be to pick the best eleven available at all times (A teams, squads and the like are the place to be positioning players to develop in years to come). Are you really suggesting that if Australia were playing West Indies and Daniel Doran was picked ahead of Mitchell Johnson, that'd not be a mistake, just because Australia would almost certainly win anyway?

No selector is to blame if the best players available are not good enough; equally, it is to the credit of no selector if despite hundreds of occasions when inferior players are ignored for superior ones the team keeps winning.

[Richard]

They interviewed Tim Nielsen just then and he said that they felt that Siddle and Clark were similar bowlers, and they felt Hilfenhaus could get some movement and they wanted to play a spinner. So if they played Hilfenhaus and no Hauritz and then Clark and Siddle would of been too similar.

"Too similar" is a notoriously stupid reason for not picking players.

Quality, not variety, is the order of the day where cricketers are concerned.

Still, at least bad reasoning is better than refusing to give reasoning at all.

[Richard]

IMO, the selectors deserve credit for picking the side that they thought would win them the game, not the side that would avoid upsetting a bunch of armchair selectors without half the knowledge that they had.

Obviously they do - they just deserve discredit for failing to recognise which side would have the best chance of winning the game.

[Uppercut]

Well Hilfenhaus is doing a good job of justifying his selection, so I don't think they deserve any discredit at all.

[aussie]

"Too similar" is a notoriously stupid reason for not picking players.

Quality, not variety, is the order of the day where cricketers are concerned.

Still, at least bad reasoning is better than refusing to give reasoning at all.

Added to the fact outside of height, Siddle & Clark offer far different things as bowlers.

But again this should not be Hilfenhaus vs Clark selection debate. Clark should have been playing ahead of Haurtiz.

[JonnyB]

Well Hilfenhaus is doing a good job of justifying his selection, so I don't think they deserve any discredit at all.

Totally agreed.. He bowled really well yesterday

[Top_Cat]

Added to the fact outside of height, Siddle & Clark offer far different things as bowlers.

But again this should not be Hilfenhaus vs Clark selection debate. Clark should have been playing ahead of Haurtiz.

[aussie]

No way man. That record has to keep playing, its a serious problem with the selectors. You cant go about with an acceptance that the mistake will be continously occur.

It has costed AUS before & will again.