***Official*** South Africa in England

[zaremba]

Of course it's possible (though I dread to think that they were thinking of picking Tredwell and Shreck for England, and I thought McLaren was still a SAfrican).

Tredwell and Shreck were both picked for the MCC in their previous first class matches and both will have been in the selectors' thoughts. Maclaren is a South African as you've noticed but his intention is (as I understand it) to qualify for England.

even if they've seen every game, it's really not enough.

That is, as I've said, a fair point.

Although I would point out that many people on this site seem to consider themselves qualified to pass what they think to be authoritative judgments on players having seen a player play much less cricket than 6 (or 11) 4-day matches.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Of course it's possible (though I dread to think that they were thinking of picking Tredwell and Shreck for England, and I thought McLaren was still a SAfrican). Frankly, I'd just like to know how many times they've watched him though. Not something we can know, unless their presence at Ground X was logged, though, so we'll just have to suffice with that even if they've seen every game, it's really not enough.

Please do it somewhere, I'd love to hear them.

But remember - successful |= good piece of selection.

So if Pattinson takes 10 in the match, it was still a bad selection?

 

[Richard]

I'm struggling to understand this logic. Surely if the selectors pick a player who contributes strongly to the team's cause it can't be anything other than a good piece of selection.

No. A good selection is one that's made for good reasons. A shocking piece of selection can end-up paying-off. Similarly, just because something's a good selection doesn't mean it'll work. I'd not imagine anyone would say Mark Ramprakash playing Test cricket was a poor selection just because he only averaged 16 in his first 20-odd Tests.

You have to have sound reasoning behind a selection for it to make sense IMO. It's not enough to say "ah well look he took 7 wickets so therefore I WAS right to pick him".

 

[tooextracool]

Oh come on.

So you think that the selectors wouldn't go to watch a match between Notts and whoever they're playing unless they were going with the specific intention of watching Pattinson?!

For instance, take the first match of the season which your logic suggests that no selector would have attended because they'd not heard of Pattinson. Do you think it's just possible that a selector went to the game, to run their eye over Denly, Key, Tredwell, Swann, Shreck, Maclaren and Patel? If so do you think that they failed to spot the fact that Pattinson took 8 wickets in the match?

Selectors dont make it to every game. Routinely, there are a handful of FC games that are going on at the same time, and it wouldnt surprise me if they didn't make it to watch many of Pattinson's games. IMO the selectors spend far more time monitoring the likes of Flintoff and Jones than they do with some of the names mentioned on that list.

 

[Richard]

So if Pattinson takes 10 in the match, it was still a bad selection?

Yup.

 

[Richard]

Tredwell and Shreck were both picked for the MCC in their previous first class matches and both will have been in the selectors' thoughts.

Oh, yes, I know they were - but it truly worries me that they were.

That is, as I've said, a fair point.

Although I would point out that many people on this site seem to consider themselves qualified to pass what they think to be authoritative judgments on players having seen a player play much less cricket than 6 (or 11) 4-day matches.

It's not neccessarily a case passing judgement - sometimes it's a case of saying "I can't pass any judgement on him, so therefore neither can anyone else - because the evidence is just too limited".

And another aside - you don't have to have watched someone who has a First-Class average in the 30s play to know he's not very good.

 

[zaremba]

Routinely, there are a handful of FC games that are going on at the same time

The selectors have a magical ability to be in more than one place at once, however. This is because there are more than one of them.

 

[zaremba]

And another aside - you don't have to have watched someone who has a First-Class average in the 30s play to know he's not very good.

Do you mean Pattinson? His average is 26.

 

[_Ed_]

No. A good selection is one that's made for good reasons. A shocking piece of selection can end-up paying-off. Similarly, just because something's a good selection doesn't mean it'll work. I'd not imagine anyone would say Mark Ramprakash playing Test cricket was a poor selection just because he only averaged 16 in his first 20-odd Tests.

You have to have sound reasoning behind a selection for it to make sense IMO. It's not enough to say "ah well look he took 7 wickets so therefore I WAS right to pick him".

Shane Bond was a left-field selection in 2001. The reason for his inclusion was basically a mixture of injuries and the fact that he took a few wickets in a NZ A tour (which, although I stand to be corrected, I think he was also an injury replacement on). I remember a fairly large number of people saying "Shane who?" when he was named in the XI to play Australia.

A poor selection, do you think?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Yup.

No.

 

[wpdavid]

Blofeld on top form - quite open about the fact that he can't tell the difference between Prince & Ntini in the field. Even brought Amla into the discussion, ffs.

 

[Richard]

Cook goooooooooonnnnnnnnnnneeeeeeeeeeeeee. Poor decision.

 

[Jono]

I like Alaistair Cook, but truly hate watching him bat.

Looks awkward. He pushes at everything, and his feet look weird. Its not even a cool unorthodox technique like a Lara or Yuvraj.

And lol @ I type this Cook is probably incorrectly given out down the leg side.

 

[_Ed_]

Blofeld on top form - quite open about the fact that he can't tell the difference between Prince & Ntini in the field. Even brought Amla into the discussion, ffs.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Oh dear.

 

[tooextracool]

I'm struggling to understand this logic. Surely if the selectors pick a player who contributes strongly to the team's cause it can't be anything other than a good piece of selection.

I disagree. a poor selection is a poor selection irrespective of the result achieved.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Billy, we only have five batsmen. We don't need them to be sawn off.

 

[jammay123]

another 'roughie' i suspect

 

[steds]

Left-field = bad in cricket, as a rule, for mine. Cricket is by nature a game based in conservativism.

Which isn't necessarily a good thing itself.

 

[wpdavid]

ffs Bowden. We're in enough trouble without you sawing off one of the few batsmen we actually picked today.