Worst Selectors Of The World

[krishneelz]

It has to be the indian selectors considering when they did not select VVS for the last two tests. An absolute travesty. Another example i in the last world cup when Mongia was selected as a middle order batsman.

 

[SJS]

I am glad you say that though it was difficult to find people who doid not think Laxman should be dropped for good from Indian cricket, let alone the team, after (and some even before) his first ball dismissal in the Nagpur test.

The most vociforous of the one billion odd Indian 'selectors seemed to be baying for the unglamorous Laxman's blood which is , of course, nothing new in his distinguished, even though largely unappreciated, career.

On this very forum there were many who didnt think there was any case of his having played before Kaif anyway. Dont even mention Yuvraj, that would be blasphemy

But stil, I am glad you think otherwise.

 

[BlackCap_Fan]

Australian.

They drop Bevan, and he goes on to make 7 hundreds in his next 8 games.

 

[Tony Blade]

Australian

 

[NZTailender]

Bracewell. Marshall over Vincent? Ugh.

 

[Dasa]

All of them. I don't think any teams fans are pleased with their selectors....

 

[age_master]

India seem to be the worst for mine.

The Australian selectors would look alot worse if not for the class of players that have had to pick from over recent years. How Lehmann did not play 120+ tests and 350+ ODI's i will never understand.

 

[archie mac]

I am glad you say that though it was difficult to find people who doid not think Laxman should be dropped for good from Indian cricket, let alone the team, after (and some even before) his first ball dismissal in the Nagpur test.

The most vociforous of the one billion odd Indian 'selectors seemed to be baying for the unglamorous Laxman's blood which is , of course, nothing new in his distinguished, even though largely unappreciated, career.

On this very forum there were many who didnt think there was any case of his having played before Kaif anyway. Dont even mention Yuvraj, that would be blasphemy

But stil, I am glad you think otherwise.

I know the Aussies will think it Very Very Special if he never plays against them again

 

[Richard]

Most sets of selectors tend to make more than their share of terrible decisions... they very often have one overriding foible in common - the propensity to get the two forms of the game mixed-up.
Pakistan and Sri Lanka if I listed them - even in the last 3 years or so - it'd go on forever.
Aus...
Most recently, how on Earth did Hodge get dropped for Martyn who'd averaged 23 in the domestic season?
How on Earth did Tait and Hauritz get into the sides on the tours they went on? It was clearly poor planning because they were never meant to play when the parties were selected.
How did Watson possibly get picked on debut ahead of Lehmann? The reasoning was terrible.
Why was Clarke ahead of 3 or 4 better-qualified candidates a year ago?
HOW ON EARTH did Symonds deserve his spot on debut ahead of Katich who'd scored 199 for once out his previous game?
What were Bracken and Williams doing anywhere near the Test team?
Why, really, did any of Dorey, Johnson, Lewis, White, Hopes, Watson, Hauritz, Campbell and Harvey get anywhere near the ODI side?
SA...
How many terrible selections of the last 2 years or so?
West Indies... for the last 15 years or so you can't really get started, you'll never stop.
New Zealand... most of the current team aren't up to it.
I could name a billion bad decisions by England selectors down the years - to be fair to them, they've been better recently but I can't help doubting it'll last forever.
Few selectors do a particularly good job. But you have to sympathise with them. Mostly they're only picking players who the press and public are demanding.

 

[SJS]

I know the Aussies will think it Very Very Special if he never plays against them again

I suspect with today's disaster at Wankhede we may see a revival in his fortunes/career.

 

[andyc]

What were Bracken and Williams doing anywhere near the Test team?

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

 

[TIF]

Indian selectors look like the worst in the world. If Laxman was playing for any other team, he would have played over 200+ ODIs and over a 100+ tests. As for Indian selectors, whenever the Indian team failed in ODIs, it was always Laxman who was dropped irrespective of how well he did in ODIs. This time, the selectors took it 1 step far by dropping Laxman from the tests XI as well just for 1 duck. Some great players, have had worse batting performance than that, but it happens only with Laxman, 1 failure and you are out whereas players like Parthiv Patel earlier used to hang in the team despite repeated failures for a year.

Also, another blunder was dropping Kaif despite the fact that Kaif made 91 to take India to a 300+ score in the 1st innings when all other batsmen except Jaffer failed. But, not selecting Kaif for the next 2 tests, proved to be a blunder as well.

There have been many more blunders by Indian selectors in recent years and to write all of them out here, i will have to post on here for more than 3-4 hours at a go.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'll have a go at the Australian ones.

Most recently, how on Earth did Hodge get dropped for Martyn who'd averaged 23 in the domestic season?

Agreed. Martyn should never have been dropped in the first place, and the only possible reason for bringing him back is that the selectors realised they had been wrong.

How on Earth did Tait and Hauritz get into the sides on the tours they went on? It was clearly poor planning because they were never meant to play when the parties were selected.

That's obvious enough really... injuries, and in Tait's case shocking form of two front-line bowlers. Hauritz shouldn't have been picked over MacGill, but Tait's selection in the touring squad was entirely justified, and the only other option Australia had at the time was MacGill.

How did Watson possibly get picked on debut ahead of Lehmann? The reasoning was terrible.

That's pretty easy too. a) the selectors wanted to blood an all-rounder, b) Lehmann was viewed as past his best and had just come from an awful tour of India, and c) they wanted a third seam bowling option to go with the two spinners.

Why was Clarke ahead of 3 or 4 better-qualified candidates a year ago?

He was picked on potential, and it was a perfectly justifiable call that Clarke has since shown to be valid with quite a number of excellent performances. The time in the test team and the subsequent time out of it will do him good in the long run.

HOW ON EARTH did Symonds deserve his spot on debut ahead of Katich who'd scored 199 for once out his previous game?

Agreed. Shocking call. The only justification was Symonds evidently having the best of Murali in the ODI series beforehand.

What were Bracken and Williams doing anywhere near the Test team?

Bracken had absolutely dominated India in an ODI series just previously, and with a series of injuries it was a fair call to pick him. ODIs and tests might be different forms of the game, but they aren't so different that absolutely brilliant swing bowling won't get you wickets in both. It turned out to be wrong to pick him then of course, but really with McGrath, Gillespie, Lee etc out, Bichel considered too old and Bracken coming off a wonderful ODI series, who would you have picked instead? Williams was of course a shocking decision.

Why, really, did any of Dorey, Johnson, Lewis, White, Hopes, Watson, Hauritz, Campbell and Harvey get anywhere near the ODI side?

Some of those are perfectly good selections, others obviously aren't. Watson, Hopes and White were all part of a push for a quality ODI all-rounder. Hopes had a very good season in List-A domestic cricket directly before he was first picked, and played well on debut. Watson was the rising star of Australian domestic cricket, coming off a season where he averaged over 50 with the bat and was bowling extremely well. White toured Pakistan with Australia A and played very well in the one day games there. At this time, White is obviously not good enough for ODIs, but he has great potential as a number 7 all-rounder in the future, Hopes just isn't good enough for international cricket, and Watson has a way to go but it's certainly a fair idea to give him a run in the Australian team to help him develop as a player.

Dorey was picked based on his Pura Cup form (which was sensational), and obviously it was a bad call, but fairly understandable as Australia were looking to try new bowlers in the wake of the Ashes. Johnson was a selection on potential, and a very poor one. Lewis got selected as a reward for years of quality service to Victoria, particularly in domestic one day cricket. Nobody could really have picked how badly he would bowl, though he should never have been picked for South Africa after a horrid VB series. Hauritz was a poor selection, but at least managed a couple of good games. Campbell was a pretty reasonable one as he only played when Gilchrist was unavailable, and while Harvey was never a great ODI player, he did well enough that you can hardly say he should never have been anywhere near the team. 73 ODIs indicate that he wasn't just a freak pick.

Overall, the Australian selectors have made a fair number of mistakes in recent times, but they've also made some excellent calls, such as plucking Stuart Clark out of domestic cricket (career average 30) for a wonderful debut, recalling Bracken to the ODI side despite a modest ING Cup run, picking Hussey to bat down the order in ODIs, and so on. The problem is that selectors only get discussed when they make an error, not when they do something right that other people might not have picked.

 

[aussie]

Williams was of course a shocking decision.

On Williams Sean at the time i dont think at the time when he was given a chance at test level it wasn't such a bad decision, remember going into the Zimbabwe test Lee, Dizzy & Pigeon were all out & Williams was doing well for WA for a few seasons before hand & was around the set-up, remembe rhe had played a few OD games in VB series 2002 & 2003, went to the WI etc so it was fair to give him a chance. But obviously he proved he wasn't test class.

 

[aussie]

How Lehmann did not play 120+ tests and 350+ ODI's i will never understand.

being a bit harsh mate, we all know that during the 90's with the Waugh's, Ponting, Langer, Bevan etc in the middle order he was just unfortunate to be an aussie at the time same can be said about MacGill but we cant blame the selectors for that.

 

[Richard]

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

Well... had he done that then?
No, it came a year later.
At the time of selection his First-Class average was barely under 30. Yet Kasprowicz was fit, available and firing.

 

[Richard]

That's obvious enough really... injuries, and in Tait's case shocking form of two front-line bowlers. Hauritz shouldn't have been picked over MacGill, but Tait's selection in the touring squad was entirely justified, and the only other option Australia had at the time was MacGill.

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.

That's pretty easy too. a) the selectors wanted to blood an all-rounder, b) Lehmann was viewed as past his best and had just come from an awful tour of India, and c) they wanted a third seam bowling option to go with the two spinners.

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.

He was picked on potential, and it was a perfectly justifiable call that Clarke has since shown to be valid with quite a number of excellent performances. The time in the test team and the subsequent time out of it will do him good in the long run.

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.
Whether or not Clarke comes back a better player remains to be seen, but even if he does it will never make his selection at it's time anything other than poor. Who knows - if he'd not been picked, maybe he'd have had the 398-for-once-out sooner.

Bracken had absolutely dominated India in an ODI series just previously, and with a series of injuries it was a fair call to pick him. ODIs and tests might be different forms of the game, but they aren't so different that absolutely brilliant swing bowling won't get you wickets in both. It turned out to be wrong to pick him then of course, but really with McGrath, Gillespie, Lee etc out, Bichel considered too old and Bracken coming off a wonderful ODI series, who would you have picked instead?

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.

Some of those are perfectly good selections, others obviously aren't. Watson, Hopes and White were all part of a push for a quality ODI all-rounder.

And yet quite clearly all are woefully substandard in the bowling department and none deserve to be called anything other than batsmen-who-bowl.

Hopes had a very good season in List-A domestic cricket directly before he was first picked, and played well on debut. Watson was the rising star of Australian domestic cricket, coming off a season where he averaged over 50 with the bat and was bowling extremely well.

WOW, A WHOLE 1 GOOD SEASON! Don't you think it might be better to wait until someone's had at least 2 good seasons in a row before picking them? Unless I'm very much mistaken, too, Watson averaged just over 30 in 2001\02 and went at 6.14-an-over (6 wickets at 63.50). Hardly what I'd call ODI material.

White toured Pakistan with Australia A and played very well in the one day games there. At this time, White is obviously not good enough for ODIs, but he has great potential as a number 7 all-rounder in the future

So... mightn't it be a good idea to wait for that future, rather than picking a player at a time when he's clearly nowhere near good enough?

Hopes just isn't good enough for international cricket, and Watson has a way to go but it's certainly a fair idea to give him a run in the Australian team to help him develop as a player.

So... you think barely getting more than 7 or 8 overs (if even that, if even anything at all) is really going to help him? You think coming-on second-change (or third, or fourth) and usually getting belted is going to help either him or Australia?
'Cos I sure 'nuff don't.

Dorey was picked based on his Pura Cup form (which was sensational), and obviously it was a bad call, but fairly understandable as Australia were looking to try new bowlers in the wake of the Ashes.

Mightn't it have been better to pick someone who'd done well in more than 3 or 4 games? The way I understand it Dorey had been out of top-level cricket for about 6 years or something, then returned and within a couple of months was in Australian colours.
Forgive me, that doesn't seem an obvious route to success.

Lewis got selected as a reward for years of quality service to Victoria, particularly in domestic one day cricket. Nobody could really have picked how badly he would bowl, though he should never have been picked for South Africa after a horrid VB series.

I wasn't really referring to the South Africa series - I know most people struggled to believe he was on the plane.
I was referring to the time he made his debut.
And I reckon I could've picked that he'd lack accuracy. While his domestic wicket-taking has been fine in one-dayers, his List-A ER is poor and every time he's bowled in England he's usually gone for plenty, in both codes.
I'd say he was a better First-Class than one-day bowler.

Campbell was a pretty reasonable one as he only played when Gilchrist was unavailable

Yes, I know that, but previously and later Haddin had\has been picked.
I can't really believe that James Maher was seriously preferred at one point. Nor, the way I've heard it, is Campbell the best gloveman going around, and his batting record ain't great.
Surely Haddin or Seccombe or one of the superior glovemen would've been the better pick than both these?

and while Harvey was never a great ODI player, he did well enough that you can hardly say he should never have been anywhere near the team. 73 ODIs indicate that he wasn't just a freak pick.

I was always astonished Harvey (with the ball - only rarely did he get much of a chance with the bat) did even as well as he did - and even now his record is hardly sensational. There were many times when he was picked when I felt he never merited it. Not only on debut, but later.

Overall, the Australian selectors have made a fair number of mistakes in recent times, but they've also made some excellent calls, such as plucking Stuart Clark out of domestic cricket (career average 30) for a wonderful debut, recalling Bracken to the ODI side despite a modest ING Cup run, picking Hussey to bat down the order in ODIs, and so on. The problem is that selectors only get discussed when they make an error, not when they do something right that other people might not have picked.

Hasn't Hussey batted down the order for WA in one-dayers for about the last 6 years or something?
I'd say most good selections are pretty obvious ones that most people could make. Even then they're outnumbered by the poor calls.
As for Clark - the unwary are easily fooled:
Clark 1997\98 and 1998\99: 6 wickets at 124.67
Clark 2000\01-2005\06: 194 wickets at 27.23. Still not outstanding but in truth he only had 2 (consecutive) bad seasons in there, playing in both England and Australia, out of 8, which sure isn't bad.
I'd say Clark was an easy pick, and really I'm a bit surprised people like Bracken, Williams et al were ever preferred.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

WOW, A WHOLE 1 GOOD SEASON! Don't you think it might be better to wait until someone's had at least 2 good seasons in a row before picking them? Unless I'm very much mistaken, too, Watson averaged just over 30 in 2001\02 and went at 6.14-an-over (6 wickets at 63.50). Hardly what I'd call ODI material.

So... mightn't it be a good idea to wait for that future, rather than picking a player at a time when he's clearly nowhere near good enough?

So... you think barely getting more than 7 or 8 overs (if even that, if even anything at all) is really going to help him? You think coming-on second-change (or third, or fourth) and usually getting belted is going to help either him or Australia?
'Cos I sure 'nuff don't.

Mightn't it have been better to pick someone who'd done well in more than 3 or 4 games? The way I understand it Dorey had been out of top-level cricket for about 6 years or something, then returned and within a couple of months was in Australian colours.
Forgive me, that doesn't seem an obvious route to success.

etc

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.

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.

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 wasn't really referring to the South Africa series - I know most people struggled to believe he was on the plane.
I was referring to the time he made his debut.
And I reckon I could've picked that he'd lack accuracy. While his domestic wicket-taking has been fine in one-dayers, his List-A ER is poor and every time he's bowled in England he's usually gone for plenty, in both codes.
I'd say he was a better First-Class than one-day bowler.

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.

Yes, I know that, but previously and later Haddin had\has been picked.
I can't really believe that James Maher was seriously preferred at one point. Nor, the way I've heard it, is Campbell the best gloveman going around, and his batting record ain't great.
Surely Haddin or Seccombe or one of the superior glovemen would've been the better pick than both these?

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.

Hasn't Hussey batted down the order for WA in one-dayers for about the last 6 years or something?
I'd say most good selections are pretty obvious ones that most people could make. Even then they're outnumbered by the poor calls.

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.

As for Clark - the unwary are easily fooled:
Clark 1997\98 and 1998\99: 6 wickets at 124.67
Clark 2000\01-2005\06: 194 wickets at 27.23. Still not outstanding but in truth he only had 2 (consecutive) bad seasons in there, playing in both England and Australia, out of 8, which sure isn't bad.
I'd say Clark was an easy pick, and really I'm a bit surprised people like Bracken, Williams et al were ever preferred.

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.

 

[tooextracool]

The Australian selectors are by far the worst for reasons already mentioned and im not sure how anyone could expect differently with merv hughes on the panel.
England and Indias selectors arent too far behind.
For me the Sl selectors and the SA selectors(other than when the quota system comes into the equation) are probably the best in the world, without being completely error prone. I cant say NZ is all that bad either, the WI obviously have a very poor bunch considering how long Hinds and ricardo powell have been around the national side.

 

[neutralguy]

Some great players, have had worse batting performance than that, but it happens only with Laxman, 1 failure and you are out whereas players like Parthiv Patel earlier used to hang in the team despite repeated failures for a year.
There have been many more blunders by Indian selectors in recent years and to write all of them out here, i will have to post on here for more than 3-4 hours at a go.

Thats hilarious Yes as mohinder amarnath puts it, "indian selectors are a bunch of jokers".That should say it all.