Taking a punt

[stumpski]

I've noticed that when Michael Holding was picked for the Australian tour of 1975-76, he'd taken just 16 first-class wickets at more than 50 apiece, and had never managed more than three in an innings. On that tour he paid out more than 60 for each of his ten Test wickets, yet the selectors kept faith and he became one of the all-time greats.

What other players have rewarded the persistence of the selectors after such unpromising beginnings?

 

[Xuhaib]

I've noticed that when Michael Holding was picked for the Australian tour of 1975-76, he'd taken just 16 first-class wickets at more than 50 apiece, and had never managed more than three in an innings. On that tour he paid out more than 60 for each of his ten Test wickets, yet the selectors kept faith and he became one of the all-time greats.

What other players have rewarded the persistence of the selectors after such unpromising beginnings?

Imran Khan though he was mainly selected because he had family members in the team and cricket board.

 

[Noble One]

Obviously Shane Warne. Moderate record after one season with Victoria. Was thumped by the Indians on debut.

Selectors could easily have disposed of him, returned to your Peter Sleep and Peter Taylors of the world, but history read otherwise.

 

[andyc]

Marvan Atapattu had just about the worst start possible to Tests: 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 25, 22, 0.

 

[fredfertang]

Alf Valentine's career record was 2 for 190 in two matches when he arrived in England in 1950 - pretty good hunch!

Come to that Sonny Ramadhin had only played three matches, although with rather more success

 

[Uppercut]

Richard to launch a detailed five-paragraph post on why taking a punt is always a bad idea and the selectors who went for Holding and Warne just got lucky.

 

[fredfertang]

Richard to launch a detailed five-paragraph post on why taking a punt is always a bad idea and the selectors who went for Holding and Warne just got lucky.

That will be interesting

I suppose the follow on question is hunches that have failed to come off - trickier to recall as less memorable but I'd put forward Brian Close in 50/51 as one ......

.......... and poor old Chris Schofield as another

 

[TT Boy]

Hashim Amla. Given a lot of chances on his second comeback and it’s only been in the past 18 months that he has finally been delivering.

But with Amla in contrast to the Holding example, it wasn’t much taking a punt, as domestically he was run scoring machine.

 

[Goughy]

Richard to launch a detailed five-paragraph post on why taking a punt is always a bad idea and the selectors who went for Holding and Warne just got lucky.

It doesnt need 5 paragraphs. Taking a punt fails in the vast majority of cases. Occasionally a 'special talent' can, justifiably, be fast tracked into the team.

However, too often that is used to backdoor average cricketers into teams where they have no business being.

 

[GIMH]

Would you agree that Warne was a lucky selection Goughy?

 

[Richard]

Richard to launch a detailed five-paragraph post on why taking a punt is always a bad idea and the selectors who went for Holding and Warne just got lucky.

Not really. Holding and Warne weren't successful when they had the punts taken on them - both struggled early. Same thing true of Imran Khan - he played in England in 1971 and 1974 with no success. It was only in 1976/77 that he was really up to the task.

The point I always try to make is that taking a punt is pointless. Holding, Warne and Imran (and many others) were picked before they needed to be picked - and all suffered for it. Players as good as they will always come good eventually. It'd have been better for all concerned if selectors had just waited until they had come good, then picked them in Tests.

None of them were good selections at the time they were first selected - but the fact that they went on to become quality players doesn't justify them having been picked before they were. Someone who ends-up a quality player, certainly as good as those three (and many others) is going to become quality, no matter what (bar the obvious, such as six spinal fractures). Picking them too early is simply a needless piece of impetuosity. Sometimes it's down to incompetence (selectors believing they know better than the game); sometimes impatience (thinking "I'm so sure he's going to be quality, I want him to hurry the **** up and do it, maybe he'll go quicker if I pick him now?"); sometimes plain pig-headedness ("if I pick him now and keep faith with him when he has a few rough early games, when he turns-out quality I'll look like a genius").

I realise this is fairly detailed, and this is (lo-and-behold) the fourth paragraph - I honestly haven't designed this to fit your prediction, nor are you Nostradamus - but I hope this isn't what you had in mind. Nowhere am I suggesting anyone "got lucky".

 

[Richard]

I suppose the follow on question is hunches that have failed to come off - trickier to recall as less memorable

They may be less memorable but they're so insanely frequent that you don't need to go too far nor have a fantastic memory to find 'em.

I'd reckon 2\3rds of the list of those who've played Tests and ODIs could very easily fall into such a category.

 

[Richard]

Marvan Atapattu had just about the worst start possible to Tests: 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 25, 22, 0.

Thing to remember about Atapattu is that he was having runs like that all career. He was the ultimate all-or-nothing batsman. He'd score a faultless unbeaten double-century then make 40-odd dreadful runs in the next 5 innings', or something like that. And he did it with horrific regularity.

I've never remotely understood why, because (as we all know) when he was on-song he was fabulous to watch and made everything look ridiculously easy.

 

[Jamee999]

Is there nothing to be said to the fact that players develop better when playing Tests than when in FC cricket?

 

[Richard]

There's nothing to be said for it because it's a myth. Players develop in only one way - by doing what they need to do (whether it be batting or bowling). The only way to get better at batting is to bat; the only way to get better at bowling is to bowl. And mostly in the nets, not on the field - almost all the best have been ferocious netters and have always looked to hone new skills to great degrees in the nets long before using them in games. Two examples are Mal Loye and that slogged-sweep off seamers and Darren Gough and his reverse-inswinging Yorkers - these are two examples of millions. Unless you're a truly remarkable natural talent like David Gower you've got to net, lots and lots, and you're going to severely let yourself down if you don't. When you're on the field all you are looking to do is score runs \ bowl the ball, not develop new skills.

Also, of course, players learn what they need to do by watching others do things, and talking to those who've already done it. This, of course, has nothing to do with either playing or netting, merely watching and being keen to talk\learn.

 

[Uppercut]

Not really. Holding and Warne weren't successful when they had the punts taken on them - both struggled early. Same thing true of Imran Khan - he played in England in 1971 and 1974 with no success. It was only in 1976/77 that he was really up to the task.

The point I always try to make is that taking a punt is pointless. Holding, Warne and Imran (and many others) were picked before they needed to be picked - and all suffered for it. Players as good as they will always come good eventually. It'd have been better for all concerned if selectors had just waited until they had come good, then picked them in Tests.

None of them were good selections at the time they were first selected - but the fact that they went on to become quality players doesn't justify them having been picked before they were. Someone who ends-up a quality player, certainly as good as those three (and many others) is going to become quality, no matter what (bar the obvious, such as six spinal fractures). Picking them too early is simply a needless piece of impetuosity. Sometimes it's down to incompetence (selectors believing they know better than the game); sometimes impatience (thinking "I'm so sure he's going to be quality, I want him to hurry the **** up and do it, maybe he'll go quicker if I pick him now?"); sometimes plain pig-headedness ("if I pick him now and keep faith with him when he has a few rough early games, when he turns-out quality I'll look like a genius").

I realise this is fairly detailed, and this is (lo-and-behold) the fourth paragraph - I honestly haven't designed this to fit your prediction, nor are you Nostradamus - but I hope this isn't what you had in mind. Nowhere am I suggesting anyone "got lucky".

It's more or less what i saw coming tbh.

 

[James_W]

I agree with Richard tbh- just because it eventually comes good does not make it a genius selection. If someone is good enough, they will make it, and getting experience by playing poorly in test cricket is perhaps not the best way to improve oneself.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It's more or less what i saw coming tbh.

Indeed. He's in a place when satire can no longer touch him.

Marcus Trescothick was a recent-ish example of a hunch coming good. Averaging about 30 in FC cricket when called up and still missed from our test & (especially) ODI teams now.

 

[Manee]

It's more or less what i saw coming tbh.

Does that make it wrong? He has made a point, substantiated it and given examples.

The fact that he is a broken record, so to speak shows a remarkable consistency of thought which is more often than not, right.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Does that make it wrong? He has made a point, substantiated it and given examples.

The fact that he is a broken record, so to speak shows a remarkable consistency of thought which is more often than not, right.

Even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day.

Richard's opinion:reality ratio way less than 50% to my way of thinking.