This is for both ODI and Test cricket. I would apply it more strictly to Test cricket and give a little (and a mean a little) more leeway in ODI cricket
- A player must earn the right to be selected by performing at a level above that of his peers. That means consistent good performance over a period of time that is well above average. Average domestic performance with the hope of success at a higher level is a a) a proven massively flawed strategy and b) removes the desire for players to strive to improve as selection isnt based on excellence but other factors. There is transparancy in merit based selection which doesnt exist in other methods.
- Selection on potential and for the future is a big danger. It hurts moral as experienced players that have been performing are excluded for an unproven junior player and the furture never actually arrives with often one 'potential' player getting replaced by another, who in turn is replaced by another. The potential is seldom actualised. Selection of raw, young talent should be a rare occurance and selectors should be staking their reputaion on it as it is a high risk choice they are making. I dont exclude the possibility of a young raw player being selected, just that it should be reserved for players of 'special' talent (ie not one a year)
- International cricket is where players learn about International cricket, especially the mental side and the step up in class. As it is, this is difficult. What isnt needed is a player with limited success, limited knowledge of their own ability, limited skills and often technical issues having to learn about cricket itself rather than just the step upto Int cricket.
- Once selected a player must be given a fair run in the team. What is fair can be decided
- If they are a failure after a period in the team then they shouldnt be selected for a while and sent back to domestic cricket to re-tool their game and re-earn the right to selection.
- Once dropped a player goes back to domestic cricket and isnt selected again until they re prove themselves and re-earn the right. This keeps players hungry and selection honest.
- If a young player is selected then they need to be able to contribute at the required level straight away and need to be a 'wunderkind' or once a generation player. Too often (in English cricket) young players are selected when they are not ready and have not earned it after a lot of hype and it ruins their careers.
- The other type of selection is that of a role player. This is acceptable as the overall balance of the team is priority. However, there needs to be a special skill set that this player needs to provide. eg batting allrounder, hardhitting wicketkeeper or aggressive opener.
- Too often a selection is justified on something like "well he bowled fast the other day" or "he played a good knock last week". Occasional performances mean nothing. All decent players can have special days. Only the good ones can do it regularly. Hand picking the events of a few (or less) games as justification of selection is a fraudulent representation of that player.