Selection Theory

[Goughy]

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

 

[bond21]

I didnt know Harmison had a gambling problem

 

[Richard]

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.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I didnt know Harmison had a gambling problem

(in this loan model not in reallife]

....

 

[BoyBrumby]

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.

 

[Goughy]

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

 

[Richard]

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.

 

[Goughy]

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.

 

[BoyBrumby]

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.

 

[Goughy]

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

 

[BoyBrumby]

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?

 

[PhoenixFire]

Chris Tremlett. Bowled really well against a good Indian batting line-up last summer.

 

[Richard]

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.

 

[Richard]

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.

 

[BoyBrumby]

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.

 

[Richard]

Kirby and Shreck should never, ever get anywhere near a Test team IMO.

 

[Goughy]

Out of interest I thought Id look at players that have put 2 back-to-back moderate or better English FC seasons together

20+ wks at under 30 av in each of 2006 and 2007

Shreck
Silverwood
Gough
Chapple
Ealham
Panesar
Sidebottom
Harmison

 

[Richard]

Could you add an economy-rate - perhaps 3.3-an-over? - to that bowling thing.

Glad you're doing this as it's something I've wondered about for ages and have never had any inclination to work-out.

 

[Goughy]

Should Not be Close To England Selection

20+ wkts at over 30 av in both 2006 and 2007

Cosker
Onions
Wagg
Batty
Swann
Tredwell
Middlebrook
Anyon
Jason Brown
Steffan Jones
Croft
Bresnan
Simon Cook

Interesting to see amongst the sea of average off-spin that Onions is there amonst the worst of the regular bowlers over the past 2 years in CC.

 

[wpdavid]

Nice idea to try and quantify selection theory. My one quibble is trying to stick a value on 'talent', which generally ends up being subjective unless related to FC record, which is already there.

I reckon the mathematically inclined could come up with some sort of formula where FC averages (being increasingly reduced by a discount factor as you dip into previous years and again discounted for seasons played in D2 of the CC) are weighed up against fitness and previous chances at international level (also adjusted by how long ago and against whom). I'd tentatively suggest that the FC record should only look at performances in the last 3 years to keep the thing manageable and relevant.

Shouldn't be beyond someone out there.