Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 50

Thread: Selection Theory

  1. #1
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    still scratching around in the same old hole
    Posts
    15,676

    Selection Theory

    As many know I get frustrated with England selection. Many of the choices seem random and have no real strong logic to them. So Ive been thinking of a model to base selection on, or if not selection at least evaluation.

    I think the best is credit rating and loan application.

    The situations are no different the loan company/bank wants evidence that the money is going to be paid back and the selecters need evidence that a player can perform at Test level.

    Ive heard the argument on here that, 'how do you know someone will fail unless given the chance?' Well if banks took the same approach then they would all be bankrupt.

    Banks are not going to give me $1000 000 just to see if I may potentially pay it back. A structure is in place to evaluate applicants.

    So doing similar for Test cricket,

    Financial History = FC record. How have they managed their finances and how regular payments have been and how secure and solid they are.

    Income = Talent. What do they have at their disposal right now to suggest that repayment of faith is likely

    Current Debt = Previous Opportunities at Test Level. The more chances they have had is like the more in debt they are. The more in debt they are the less likely a loan will be given even if everything else is good.

    Personal/Medical problems = Technical issues. What things can throw plans off track and prevent longterm consistency.

    Form = Reason for loan. A player should be picked when in decent form if possible. The same way Banks do no give out loans for lottery tickets. Picking a guy on form is like the loan being for a loft conversion that will add value to the house. It doesnt mean he can afford it (be a success) but its the right reason.

    So lets take someone like Harmison. He has a decent financial history with a very high income. However he is like the guy that has a high level of current debt and a gambling problem (in this loan model not in reallife). There are red flags here. The answer would probably be, not now but possibly in the future.

    or Sidebottom
    Decent financial history, moderate income, very little other debt, few personal issues and in good form when picked. Basically this guy would get a decent sized loan. You wouldnt give him a multi-million dollar loan as he cant afford it (ie being the leader of a World Class attack) but he can certianly perform if the expectations are not too high.

    Ramprakash
    Great financial history and very high income and the loan would be made for all the right reasons however his cricketing age may mean any 'loan' given now would not be fully paid back compared to investing elsewhere and he is already morgaged upto the hilt with previous loans. One for a 'case-by-case' basis and individual selectorial whim IMO.

    Something like this needs to be applied when thinking of potential England players. If loan companies dont want to give out bad loans then England should not be throwing caps around.

    This is raw off the top of my head. May refine it later
    Last edited by Goughy; 17-05-2008 at 03:06 AM.
    If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there will be edits

    West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New York, New York
    Posts
    953
    I didnt know Harmison had a gambling problem

  3. #3
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughy View Post
    As many know I get frustrated with England selection. Many of the choices seem random and have no real strong logic to them. So Ive been thinking of a model to base selection on, or if not selection at least evaluation.

    I think the best is credit rating and loan application.

    The situations are no different the loan company/bank wants evidence that the money is going to be paid back and the selecters need evidence that a player can perform at Test level.

    Ive heard the arguement on here that, 'how do you know someone will fail unless given the chance?' Well if banks took the same approach then they would all be bankrupt.

    Banks are not going to give me $1000 000 just to see if I may potentially pay it back. A structure is in place to evaluate applicants.

    So doing similar for Test cricket,

    Financial History = FC record. How have they managed their finances and how regular payments have been and how secure and solid they are.

    Income = Talent. What do they have at their disposal right now to suggest that repayment of faith is likely

    Current Debt = Previous Opportunities at Test Level. The more chances they have had is like the more in dept they are. The more in dept they are the less likely a loan will be given even if everything else is good.

    Personal/Medical problems = Technical issues. What things can throw plans off track and prevent longterm consistency.

    Form = Reason for loan. A player should be picked when in decent form if possible. THe same way Banks do no give out loans for lottery tickets. Picking a guy on form is like the loan being for a loft conversion that will add value to the house. It doesnt mean he can afford it (be a success) but its the right reason.

    So lets take someone like Harmison. He has a decent financial history with a very high income. However he is like the guy that has a high level of current debt and a gambling problem (in this loan model not in reallife). There are red flags here. The answer would probably be, not now but possibly in the future.

    or Sidebottom
    Decent financial history, moderate income, very little other debt, few personal issues and in good form when picked. Basically this guy would get a decent sized loan. You wouldnt give him a multi-million dollar loan as he cant afford it (ie being the leader of a World Class attack) but he can certianly perform if the expectations are not too high.

    Ramprakash
    Great financial history and very high income and the loan would be made for all the right reasons however his cricketing age may mean any 'loan' given now would not be fully paid back compared to investing elsewhere and he is already morgaged upto the hilt with previous loans. One for a 'case-by-case' basis and individual selectorial whim IMO.

    Something like this needs to be applied when thinking of potential England players. If loan companies dont want to give out bad loans then England should not be throwing caps around.

    This is raw off the top of my head. May refine it later
    Not bad at all, an excellent similie.
    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

  4. #4
    International Coach PhoenixFire's Avatar
    Curveball Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Bitch please, I'm from West Yorkshire
    Posts
    14,989
    Quote Originally Posted by bond21 View Post
    I didnt know Harmison had a gambling problem
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughy View Post
    (in this loan model not in reallife]
    ....
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat View Post
    1) Had double pneumonia as a kid, as did my twin sis. Doctors told my parents to pray that we lived through the night. Dad said **** off, I'm an atheist, you ****s better save my kids, etc. Then prayed anyway.


  5. #5
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Gone too soon
    Posts
    47,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughy View Post
    As many know I get frustrated with England selection. Many of the choices seem random and have no real strong logic to them.
    With the largely inexplicable preference for Bopara over Shah excepted, none of those made by the Moores's regime seem that awful, surely? In fact two made recently-ish (Ambrose in for Prior & Broad for Harmison) have shown a refreshing ruthlessness & the logic that dictated them was vindicated to some extent.
    Cricket Web's current Premier League Tipping Champion

    - As featured in The Independent.

    "Ben Stokes, that most unlikely saint, worked the second of the two miracles he needs for his canonisation." - The Guardian's Andy Bell on the England all-rounder's Headingley ton

  6. #6
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    still scratching around in the same old hole
    Posts
    15,676
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby View Post
    With the largely inexplicable preference for Bopara over Shah excepted, none of those made by the Moores's regime seem that awful, surely? In fact two made recently-ish (Ambrose in for Prior & Broad for Harmison) have shown a refreshing ruthlessness & the logic that dictated them was vindicated to some extent.
    TBH, I see little evidence for the inclusion of Broad at this stage of his career and do not believe he is better than other options.

    As for Anderson being a first choice..? We have been over that.

    Part of the issue is that we are still quite close to the change over of coach and the speculative choices Fletcher made are now just castaside as Moores will now make his own. This cross over is a big reason why so many ordinary cricketers are playing.

    I just think that there must be reasoning why a selection is made and to do that there has to be a model to evaluate. Whether it be loans, Test caps, Tourist Visa applications etc
    Last edited by Goughy; 17-05-2008 at 04:01 AM.

  7. #7
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby View Post
    With the largely inexplicable preference for Bopara over Shah excepted, none of those made by the Moores's regime seem that awful, surely? In fact two made recently-ish (Ambrose in for Prior & Broad for Harmison) have shown a refreshing ruthlessness & the logic that dictated them was vindicated to some extent.
    Such "ruthlessness" can be well described in some cases as "brainlessness" (ie, Hoggard).

    Prior's initial selection had little going for it. Not only was his keeping always poor but he was out-of-form and there were other wicketkeepers with better batting form.

    Strauss' 2007/08 situation, where he was dropped justifiably then brought back without playing in the interim. Never mind the decision to bat three.

    Vaughan opening was a shocker just as he'd finally established himself at three.

    And as for Mustard being picked in the long-form leg of the winter... in both countries... despite being one of the worst wicketkeeper-batsmen in the country.

  8. #8
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    still scratching around in the same old hole
    Posts
    15,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Such "ruthlessness" can be well described in some cases as "brainlessness" (ie, Hoggard).

    Prior's initial selection had little going for it. Not only was his keeping always poor but he was out-of-form and there were other wicketkeepers with better batting form.

    Strauss' 2007/08 situation, where he was dropped justifiably then brought back without playing in the interim. Never mind the decision to bat three.

    Vaughan opening was a shocker just as he'd finally established himself at three.

    And as for Mustard being picked in the long-form leg of the winter... in both countries... despite being one of the worst wicketkeeper-batsmen in the country.
    TBF to you Richard. The Strauss at 3 and Vaughan opening was ******** and you called it from the very beginning.

  9. #9
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Gone too soon
    Posts
    47,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughy View Post
    TBH, I see little evidence for the inclusion of Broad at this stage of his career and do not believe he is better than other options.

    As for Anderson being a first choice..? We have been over that.

    Part of the issue is that we are still quite close to the change over of coach and the speculative choices Fletcher made are now just castaside as Moores will now make his own. This cross over is a big reason why so many ordinary cricketers are playing.

    I just think that there must be reasoning why a selection is made and to do that there has to be a model to evaluate. Whether it be loans, Test caps, Tourist Visa applications etc
    To be fair to Broad if he isn't the best option (and aside from Tremlett at a stretch, I don't see a whole heap of other choices out there to fill that role) his batting should probably mitigate in his favour.

    I personally wouldn't have dropped Hoggard after the first test and would've probably played him in the current test too, but Anderson had one good & one dire test in NZ and has comfortably outbowled Hoggard (& pretty much everybody else too) so far this season so (so the selectors' thinking presumably went) had enough credit in the bank to warrant another go.

    It isn't that I personally agree or disagree with the choices Moores & co have made that I demurred with your statement about, rather that you said there's "no real strong logic" in them, which seems harsh in the extreme.

  10. #10
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    still scratching around in the same old hole
    Posts
    15,676
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby View Post
    To be fair to Broad if he isn't the best option (and aside from Tremlett at a stretch, I don't see a whole heap of other choices out there to fill that role) his batting should probably mitigate in his favour..
    Id love to see the arguments why Broad should be considered right now.

    He could be a good player in 12-18 months to 3-4 years but he isnt right now.

    On the plus side he is tall, young and has a famous Father.

    On the negative side he has a career econ rate in FC of over 3.5 (even worse in 2007) which is not acceptable for the step upto Test level (in fact its a disaster), only played 6 FC games in the 2007 season (so he didnt force his way in), has a career FC av of 30, lacks a yard of pace and doesnt do much with the ball and has an awkward action which may limit his progression.

    He is a project at the moment. Nothing more. There isnt 1 viable or logical reason to select him right now. He just isnt ready
    Last edited by Goughy; 17-05-2008 at 04:52 AM.

  11. #11
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Gone too soon
    Posts
    47,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughy View Post
    Id love to see the arguments why Broad should be consicered right now.

    He could be a good player in 12-18 months to 3-4 years but he isnt right now.

    On the plus side he is tall, young and has a famous Father.

    On the negative side he has a career econ rate in FC of over 3.5 (even worse in 2007) which is not acceptable for the step upto Test level (in fact its a disaster), only played 6 FC games in the 2007 season (so he didnt force his way in), has a career FC av of 30, lacks a yard of pace and doesnt do much with the ball and has an awkward action which may limit his progression.

    He is a project at the moment. Nothing more. There isnt 1 viable or logical reason to select him right now. He just isnt ready
    Fair enough, all good reasons not to select him, but who would you pick in his place? Who has a better case?

  12. #12
    International Coach PhoenixFire's Avatar
    Curveball Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Bitch please, I'm from West Yorkshire
    Posts
    14,989
    Chris Tremlett. Bowled really well against a good Indian batting line-up last summer.

  13. #13
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby View Post
    Anderson had one good & one dire test in NZ
    Not really true. He bowled superbly in his opening spell (9-20-3) in the Second Test and poorly thereafter (took 24-110-4 but those figures flattered him), though there's a little mitigation in the fact that he'd twisted an ankle. And obviously he was awful in the Third.

  14. #14
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixFire View Post
    Chris Tremlett. Bowled really well against a good Indian batting line-up last summer.
    Much as I
    a) think Tremlett has more potential than Broad (though he's older and a far less capable batsman);
    b) is a better bowler at the current time and;
    c) should have toured Sri Lanka for the Tests ahead of Broad (though I don't rate the chances of success of either on those wickets)
    I still don't think we can moan too much about the most recent 3 Tests. Tremlett was injured in New Zealand and otherwise might possibly have been picked when Harmison was dropped, and there was never any chance Broad was going to be dropped after bowling decently in the Third Test in NZ.

    It's a shame, but it's a reality. If Broad were to bowl poorly in the second-innings of the ongoing First Test, I'd be happy to see Tremlett replace him. Not that I think it likely.

  15. #15
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Gone too soon
    Posts
    47,098
    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixFire View Post
    Chris Tremlett. Bowled really well against a good Indian batting line-up last summer.
    Wouldn't have a problem with him at all, as I suggested in my original post, but it's a marginal call still. It's not a travesty that Broad's ahead of him & after Tremers I don't think there are that many banging the door down.

    You could make cases for Kirby & Shreck too, but I can see the logic in the selectors preferring Broad: he's younger, less injury prone, less wayward & a better batsman than Kirby; younger, quicker & a better batsman than Shreck.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. The Pat Symcox theory
    By Arjun in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10-12-2007, 03:49 AM
  2. Anyone have a theory on why.....
    By ttm in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 22-11-2007, 06:39 AM
  3. A theory
    By cover drive man in forum Twenty20 World Cup
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 26-07-2007, 10:39 AM
  4. Nelsons ? What a theory !!!
    By FRAZ in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 30-09-2004, 01:57 AM
  5. My Theory
    By Paid The Umpire in forum World Club Cricket
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 29-07-2002, 02:42 AM

Posting Permissions

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