Worst Selectors Of The World

[tooextracool]

Hopes was also picked when Watson was missing through injury. That is, a like-for-like (or at least something close to it) switch for an injured player. Both had done a bit in other forms of cricket to indicate their potential, and they were given a go at ODI level.
Regarding Watson, he was picked early for a reason, which is that the selectors wanted to develop him in international cricket. Australia had no established all-rounder at the time, Watson was turning it on in a major way in domestic cricket and was rated highly by everyone, and so they wished to give him an extended run in the international team. And for all the talk of what a failure he has been, Watson's not ever really cost Australia a match, and there's legitimate grounds (and support in his actual performance) to believe that an extended time in international cricket without injury would make him a better player.

and by like for like replacement you mean they replaced one rubbish player with another?
i really dont understand this Australian obsession with all rounders, i mean almost all your teams success in the 90s and 2000s have come without an all rounder, why wouldnt you just pick your 6 best batsmen, gilchrist and then the 4 bowlers?

Right, not outstanding, and most importantly not the best in Australia by a long way. Clark is 30, doesn't bowl at great pace, doesn't have a stunning domestic average, and in fact was never even considered one of the best bowlers for his own state, as Bracken, Nicholson and MacGill were more feared. He didn't exactly stick his hand up and scream "pick me!". If he'd been 5 years younger, 10 kph faster or even if he'd been able to bat a bit or something, it would have been a much less surprising call. I don't know how he'll turn out in tests, but if he bowls like he did on debut all the time it'll be a great selection call. You only have to look at the reaction to his selection on this forum to see how much of a surprise his success was.

im still not confident about clarke to be honest, yes he bowled well on debut in favorable bowling conditions but IMO im not sure if he has all the assets to be the real deal just yet.

 

[marc71178]

At the time of selection his First-Class average was barely under 30.

What's that got to do with it?

Look at the likes of Simon Jones and what his average was when selected.

 

[Swervy]

What's that got to do with it?

Look at the likes of Simon Jones and what his average was when selected.

an anomoly ...to go with the others that are scattered around

 

[Richard]

Indeed - look at virtually every other bowler picked with a poor First-Class average.
Jones, at the time, was a pretty useless bowler, indeed he still was until last summer.
You two just don't seem to get it, with your continual laughing at what is simply pretty basic fact - bowlers who are unsuccessful at the domestic level are exceptionally unlikely to be successful at the international.

 

[Richard]

Selecting a national team isn't just about picking the 11 most successful domestic players and running with it. If you look at the timing for the White, Hopes and Dorey picks, they make a lot more sense. White was picked after an excellent tour of Pakistan, when Shane Watson was missing through injury. Hopes was also picked when Watson was missing through injury. That is, a like-for-like (or at least something close to it) switch for an injured player. Both had done a bit in other forms of cricket to indicate their potential, and they were given a go at ODI level. The White case might have been premature, but if you see the way he can bat at his best in the shorter form, it's easy to see why he would have been considered. Hopes isn't an international standard player in my view, but he had a good ING season leading up to his selection, Watson was missing in action and Australia wanted a guy who could fill in overs and bat at 8. Hopes wasn't a completely poor option, all things considered, even if he didn't work out in the end.

As has already been said - replacing one rubbish player with another is not something to be proud of.

The Dorey situation was one of overreaction to massive potential, based on the fact that he had a long period out of cricket, and came back in spectacular fashion. It's easy to see why any selector would jump at the chance to pick a mature 6 foot 8 bowler who can swing it both ways at decent pace and was miles ahead of everyone else in wicket taking for the season, especially when said selector is in charge of a team attempting to rebuild their bowling attack after Gillespie and Kasprowicz bombed out in the Ashes.

How is having 3 or 4 good games "coming back in spectacular fashion"?

Regarding Watson, he was picked early for a reason, which is that the selectors wanted to develop him in international cricket. Australia had no established all-rounder at the time, Watson was turning it on in a major way in domestic cricket and was rated highly by everyone, and so they wished to give him an extended run in the international team. And for all the talk of what a failure he has been, Watson's not ever really cost Australia a match, and there's legitimate grounds (and support in his actual performance) to believe that an extended time in international cricket without injury would make him a better player.

I don't see how. Surely he'd have been better playing for Australia "A"?
Even if Watson's never cost a match, there's just no two ways about the fact he's been a miserable failure in ODIs so far. I, frankly, expect that to continue.
This obsession with all-rounders, when a bad all-rounder can do real damage to a side (even though it hasn't - yet) is stupid in itself. And I don't see how you can continue to attest that Watson was turning it on in domestic cricket when I've brought-up his season's stats before his ODI debut and they were pretty average (his career record with the bat was even worse).

You might say that, but he's been quite successful in ING games for Victoria. And of course, he is and was a specialist death bowler, something Australia were after, and as he'd been given a contract after a very strong season, and Australia were suffering under a weight of injuries and resting McGrath, it made sense to pick him, at least at first. Certainly should not have played again after the VB series though.

There were more stupid options, I'll give you that.
But I don't think it would've taken rocket-science to guess that Lewis was not going to make a good ODI bowler - though no-one could guess quite how bad he'd be.

Haddin was a shadow of the player he is now when Campbell was first picked, and Seccombe was always a pretty awful batsman. Given that Campbell was picked only for ODIs, it wasn't such a bad call, he was simply the better of a bunch of mediocre options. Maher was of course picked on his batting, which has been very consistent through his whole career. He was a rubbish keeper, simply better there than a Ponting or whoever else might have done it.

To pick Maher as a back-up wicketkeeper was stupid, simple as. As Darren Berry put it at the time "what message does that send to the state wicketkeepers?"
Haddin mightn't have been as good then as he is now, but, as I say, he'd already been picked for ODIs before Campbell, and given that Campbell's never been anything outstanding domestically I don't see why there was any need to scrap Haddin.

Yes he has, most of the time anyway, but he'd never played anything like he has since his ODI call-up, by any means. There's no doubt that picking Hussey and playing him as a specialist finisher at 6/7 was a real masterstroke of selection, and it has paid off hugely so far. Either that or a total fluke that came from him having another great season in England and there being an open spot in the team. We'll probably never know, except that it was a bit of a surprise to quite a number of people, and very successful.

It was no surprise to me that he was picked to bat where he was. If someone is batting somewhere in domestic cricket, to me it makes sense to bat them there in internationals. I think his ODI (and Test) form has surprised most people - but there we go. Surprises happen. Certainly I don't see how the selectors are to credit for it. They could hardly ignore him forever.

Right, not outstanding, and most importantly not the best in Australia by a long way. Clark is 30, doesn't bowl at great pace, doesn't have a stunning domestic average, and in fact was never even considered one of the best bowlers for his own state, as Bracken, Nicholson and MacGill were more feared. He didn't exactly stick his hand up and scream "pick me!". If he'd been 5 years younger, 10 kph faster or even if he'd been able to bat a bit or something, it would have been a much less surprising call. I don't know how he'll turn out in tests, but if he bowls like he did on debut all the time it'll be a great selection call. You only have to look at the reaction to his selection on this forum to see how much of a surprise his success was.

I hardly see that anyone had right to be surprised - who was clamouring for selection ahead of him?
As I've said - Clark's domestic average mightn't be stunning but I'll bet you can't come-up with too many other untried Test bowlers who averaged 27 or so in the 2000\01-2005\06 period.
If anyone really considered Nicholson a better bowler - that's their fault. Nicholson might have more obvious wicket-taking skills but he's clearly nowhere near as accurate, and I've always been pretty exasperated by his inconsistency.

 

[Matt79]

Selectors cannot base selections solely on statistics. Clearly results on the scoreboard are required too, but selectors need to take into account a player's age, or more relevantly his projected lifespan as a quality player, his character, and whether he offers the team something they can't get elsewhere.
Steve Waugh's stats didn't support his selection for the first five years of his career, yet the selectors and his team saw something worth persisting with and nurturing.

 

[Richard]

Selectors cannot seriously believe that a player with poor domestic statistics is anything other than very unlikely to succeed at international level.
Equally, just because someone's failed at international level doesn't mean they should be written-off. But cases such as Stephen Waugh's are nonetheless unusual. Plenty said his bowling contributed to his being maintained in the team when he was doing little with the bat.

 

[Matt79]

I agree that in general, if the first class record is not good, the international record is not likely to be much better - with the big qualification that sometimes stats don't tell the story, for instance has the player been injured, have they changed something, etc that sometimes justify a call up being made.

Skipping back a bit, Clarke was screaming to be picked when he was, in terms of 1st class and ODI form. It was a good selection because of his youth, his reported learning abilities, and because of the repayment I'm certain he'll make in the faith shown. He should not however, have been elevated from six to four so soon.

 

[Richard]

I agree that in general, if the first class record is not good, the international record is not likely to be much better - with the big qualification that sometimes stats don't tell the story, for instance has the player been injured, have they changed something, etc that sometimes justify a call up being made.

Which simply says don't take an overall career as read.
Sometimes you need to look at things a bit more subtly - ie if someone has had 3 seasons of averaging 21 (with ball), they might just be worth a go, whetever their career average.

Skipping back a bit, Clarke was screaming to be picked when he was, in terms of 1st class and ODI form. It was a good selection because of his youth, his reported learning abilities, and because of the repayment I'm certain he'll make in the faith shown. He should not however, have been elevated from six to four so soon.

Clarke's First-Class form was never anything special.
Whatever he might become, to pick him when he was picked was poor.

 

[tooextracool]

Because Bracken is a class bowler. You don't take 7/4 without being good.

do all class bowlers average 42 in international cricket?
and since shaun udal once took 8/50 in FC cricket, we can also call him a class bowler.

 

[marc71178]

Indeed - look at virtually every other bowler picked with a poor First-Class average.

Like Flintoff you mean?

And didn't McGrath and Warne both have poor averages when they were called up?

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Selectors cannot seriously believe that a player with poor domestic statistics is anything other than very unlikely to succeed at international level.
Equally, just because someone's failed at international level doesn't mean they should be written-off. But cases such as Stephen Waugh's are nonetheless unusual. Plenty said his bowling contributed to his being maintained in the team when he was doing little with the bat.

Are Watson domestic stats really poor? If you consider 40+ with the bat and 30 or slightly under with the bat is poor I'll kill a kitten.

 

[aussie]

The simple fact of the matter is, neither were picked in the squads with the remotest intention of being played in the Tests. You yourself even said that about Tait in your Ashes review article.
As such, to pick someone in that circumstance has to be said to be a very poor call.

And Watson's bowling had been so sensational recently as to justify remotely possibly calling him an all-rounder?
No, he was never going to bowl much (he didn't) and it was a crazy call.

Clarke's form from his 6th Test onwards shows quite clearly that it was a poor call. Nothing, now, will ever change that. He was not the best-qualified candidate, nor even close, and despite the initial returns that has now been proven.

Err - was Kasprowicz really not available?
As we've seen many times - especially in day\night games and even more especially in India in October - swinging the white and red balls are a different proposition. Not totally different, of course, but I've always said that to base anything, no matter how seemingly similar, on Tests relative to ODIs or the other way around is folly.
I find it inconceivable that there weren't other options to Kasprowicz, too.

1. Firstly on Tait, maybe when he went to the ashes no one expected him to play since no one expected Australia's fast bowling stocks to deplete so badly in Dizzy & Kasper during the ashes. I cant see how its a poor call to pick him to debut in the 2 test he played in if 2 of your best bowlers are failing, given the fact that he was the best young bowler in the country & his record in the previous Australian season showed his potential?

2. Maybe at the time his bowling wasn't fantastic & you could have said that yea this bloke is a real all-rounder in the making, no. But obviously the selectors saw his potential at the time that everyone was seeing. Plsus before that SCG Australia had the series in the bag, they had nothing to lose againts a poor looking PAK team at the time, so i cant understand how that was a crazy call?

3. Well yea Kasper was but its understandable why the selectors would have gone for Bracken over him.Bracken was around the one-day set from early 2003 & was doing well & his performances in India helped press his claim, but has we saw at the time he wasn't a good enough with the red ball.

Plus its even understandable why Kasper wasn't selected until Bichel was dropped because Williams also had been doing well for WA had been around the sqaud for a while & deserved at least a chance to see how he would go at test level based on some good OD performances at the time.

 

[aussie]

and by like for like replacement you mean they replaced one rubbish player with another?
i really dont understand this Australian obsession with all rounders, i mean almost all your teams success in the 90s and 2000s have come without an all rounder, why wouldnt you just pick your 6 best batsmen, gilchrist and then the 4 bowlers?

im still not confident about clarke to be honest, yes he bowled well on debut in favorable bowling conditions but IMO im not sure if he has all the assets to be the real deal just yet.

1. Gosh, Watson may not have set the world on fire with his performances but at least the bloke has shown potential his is still young, why right him of as rubbish?

2. The 4-bowler as worled well for such a long time yes but with McGrath & Warne not getting any younger its obvious Australia will lose the edge with 4 bowlers when those 2 are gone, so bowlers will need to be the go in the future & blokes like Watson & Henriques are candidates to fill that role in the future

 

[aussie]

I don't see how. Surely he'd have been better playing for Australia "A"?
Even if Watson's never cost a match, there's just no two ways about the fact he's been a miserable failure in ODIs so far. I, frankly, expect that to continue.

dalm i dont get some of you people sometimes, Watson hasn't done anything spectacular but his overall performance has been by no means rubbish or deserves to be classified as 'miserbale failure'. Once he gets to play in a suited role in the Australian team that he does for queensland i'll expect better performances from him for sure. Just give the bloke a chance writing him off as rubbish at such a young age when he has shown much potential is stupid..

 

[Blaze]

New Zealand... most of the current team aren't up to it.
.

Aren't up to what? We aren't going to beat Australia but we are pretty competitve against everyone else.

 

[Smudge]

Don't bother, Blaze. You'll just enter a world of hurt.

 

[sirjeremy11]

Don't bother, Blaze. You'll just enter a world of hurt.

I think Blaze's avatar shows exactly what he is up against here.

 

[luckyeddie]

I think Blaze's avatar shows exactly what he is up against here.

It's how I imagine I would feel if I asked Richard what time it was, then waited for a response.

 

[tooextracool]

1. Gosh, Watson may not have set the world on fire with his performances but at least the bloke has shown potential his is still young, why right him of as rubbish?

watson has definetly been rubbish with the ball, infact id claim that his bowlin is as good as non existent. as far as his batting is concerned, do you think that there arent better pure batsmen in domestic cricket than watson?

2. The 4-bowler as worled well for such a long time yes but with McGrath & Warne not getting any younger its obvious Australia will lose the edge with 4 bowlers when those 2 are gone, so bowlers will need to be the go in the future & blokes like Watson & Henriques are candidates to fill that role in the future

and how about trying to find the next mcgrath or the next warne(or someone remotely close) instead of trying to replace them with the likes of watson, symonds and co? if an all rounder is there for australia he will show potential in domestic cricket, theres no point in picking thrash and hoping for it to turn into a pot of gold by bringing it into international cricket.