Worst Selection Decisions

[SeamUp]

1996 CWC when Bob Woolmer decided to leave out Allan Donald for Paul Adams in the QF against Windies. We ended up losing after winning all our group games.

 

[African Monkey]

For NZ, picking James Marshall to play test cricket deserves a mention. One of the worst players to play test cricket.

Diamanti and Thompson were both rubbish who should never have been anywhere near the NZ team.

Brooke Walker would have to be another. I reckon I could have been more threatning with the ball than him.

 

[zaremba]

I really don't understand this post. It seems to say that we should have picked Giles because he could bat and because it doesn't matter if he can't bowl. Perhaps we should have gone with KP as a spinning all-rounder and another batsman if this is the best way of thinking.

I never understood the picking poor bowlers because they can add a few with the bat mentality myself. Bowlers bowl first and anything else is a bonus.

I can see your point of view but I don't think it's realistic. Once the selectors decided to play 5 batsmen and Flintoff at 6 (ie at least one position too high) it was impossible to ignore the potential crapness of the batting that followed. Panesar was not likely to be a matchwinner at Brisbane and Giles was pretty much as capable at playing the role of 5th bowler and holding spinner as Panesar.

The "play your best bowlers and to hell with their batting" approach may be defensible if your 8-9-10-11 is Murali, Walsh, Donald, McGrath and if you haven't got a glorified number 8 batting at 6. But Monty's bowling was hardly as indispensable as that. He was also a rank liability in the field which is a factor that should carry some weight: having a complete Charlie in the field gives off all the wrong impressions and the last thing England needed was the Aussie crowds mocking their haplessness in the field (a la Phil Tufnell). As it happened this is precisely what Harmison managed with his first ball of the match.

Richard's point that Giles hadn't played for ages is the strongest objection to that particular piece of selection. But to be fair it's not as though Monty had done much prior to that first Test either.

 

[zaremba]

Yeah, he was done. I remember hype around him, Dev and Gus for that tour but I had never seen him bowl before and he didnt bowl in any of the games due to the injury.

Did anyone else have a chance to watch him? Impressions? Dev pace? Greg Thomas pace?

I never saw him bowl but do remember reading a lot about him when the tour party was picked. For what it's worth (ie precisely zero) he was banned from bowling in school matches because he was too fast and hostile. I think he was regarded as genuinely quick but his career was so short that it's hard to tell. Quite often these quick bowlers turn out not to be as quick as you like to think: I remember Simon Jones being touted as Brett Lee quick before he made his debut against India, whereupon it became clear that he was pretty quick but not lightning-fast.

The selection of Wayne Larkins was a weird one. He had scored a match-winning ton against Australia in an ODI tournament in late 1989 so his selection for the Windies tour in early 1990 was just about justifiable. I think that he was basically a Gooch pick. He had a reputation of from time to time demolishing bowling attacks (a process known as "Nedding") and I think Gooch may have seen a couple of such innings and been impressed by them. One ridiculous aspect of the affair was that Gower, who at that stage was, along with Smith, probably England's best batsman, was excluded from the tour ostensibly on grounds of age, whereas Larkins was drafted into a squad already containing Gooch and Lamb. All 3 were older than him.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Just beaten 5-0 and 6-1 by South Africa, West Indies returned home to face the mighty Australians. What do the selectors do? They pick this 31-year-old to open, this 30 year old to bat at 3, and a 32-year-old Roland Holder batting at 7. West Indies scored 218 runs in the match, bowled out for 51 in the second of them.

Speaking of the South Africa debacle, this guy (19 yrs) had just 401 FC runs (with 1 hundred and 2 fifties) in 9 matches to his name. He was picked and debuted in the 3rd Test, in a team where Junior Murray played as a specialist opener. Such was the lack of quality in the squad. To his credit, young Ganga lasted 94 balls in his first innings.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Also worth noting that Lincoln Roberts, 24, was picked with a FC average of 23podd, with a century and 3 fifties to his name. He came out to bat after Suruj Ragoonath was out for a duck, and was out for the same to McGrath. His only achievement was that he brought Lara to the crease, and the West Indies captain went on to score 213 and set up a career-saving 10-wicket win.

 

[zaremba]

Just beaten 5-0 and 6-1 by South Africa, West Indies returned home to face the mighty Australians. What do the selectors do? They pick this 31-year-old to open, this 30 year old to bat at 3, and a 32-year-old Roland Holder batting at 7. West Indies scored 218 runs in the match, bowled out for 51 in the second of them.

What's more disturbing than their ages are those FC career stats: 30.08 being the best of them.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

What's more disturbing than their ages are those FC career stats: 30.08 being the best of them.

It's a combination of the two for me. It's not even like they were picked on potential. If you're going to pick anyone over 25 for the first time, he has to have a heck of a lot more performance behind him to justify it.

 

[thierry henry]

Neil Broom being picked ahead of Scott Styris

 

[fredfertang]

What's more disturbing than their ages are those FC career stats: 30.08 being the best of them.

The selectors might not have wanted the confidence of promising younger players being set back by beaten all ends up by those nasty Australians so picked that lot as they were expendable

 

[zaremba]

It's a combination of the two for me. It's not even like they were picked on potential. If you're going to pick anyone over 25 for the first time, he has to have a heck of a lot more performance behind him to justify it.

True. A miserable time for the Windies. Hopefully those days may be behind you now.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

The selectors might not have wanted the confidence of promising younger players being set back by beaten all ends up by those nasty Australians so picked that lot as they were expendable

Surely there's a pool in between "promising youngsters" and "washed up never-been old fogies" though.

 

[marc71178]

Clearly it's the non-selection of Darren Bravo for the recent Test series in Australia after his 19 off 16 balls against India on his ODI debut.

 

[fredfertang]

Surely there's a pool in between "promising youngsters" and "washed up never-been old fogies" though.

Who were their other options?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Clearly it's the non-selection of Darren Bravo for the recent Test series in Australia after his 19 off 16 balls against India on his ODI debut.

Should have had him in for Nash IMO. That guy's all vapid graft and no rapid flair.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Who were their other options?

Hmmm. Can't recall. That was the second series I ever watched, at the start of my interest in cricket. Can't recall the domestic forces at the time. Will research now.

EDIT:

Keith Arthurton was around and scored a few runs that season. Sure, he hadn't played a Test in half a decade, but he was still around in ODI stuff. Aside from him, Phil Simmons was the only other decent performer really. Sad times indeed.

 

[Richard]

Richard's point that Giles hadn't played for ages is the strongest objection to that particular piece of selection. But to be fair it's not as though Monty had done much prior to that first Test either.

Thanks to the diabolical scheduling that had a whole 1 First-Class game (of three days' duration) before the First Test.

Was never going to tell anyone anything significant, that.

 

[Richard]

Just beaten 5-0 and 6-1 by South Africa, West Indies returned home to face the mighty Australians. What do the selectors do? They pick this 31-year-old to open, this 30 year old to bat at 3, and a 32-year-old Roland Holder batting at 7. West Indies scored 218 runs in the match, bowled out for 51 in the second of them.

Speaking of the South Africa debacle, this guy (19 yrs) had just 401 FC runs (with 1 hundred and 2 fifties) in 9 matches to his name. He was picked and debuted in the 3rd Test, in a team where Junior Murray played as a specialist opener. Such was the lack of quality in the squad. To his credit, young Ganga lasted 94 balls in his first innings.

Also worth noting that Lincoln Roberts, 24, was picked with a FC average of 23podd, with a century and 3 fifties to his name. He came out to bat after Suruj Ragoonath was out for a duck, and was out for the same to McGrath. His only achievement was that he brought Lara to the crease, and the West Indies captain went on to score 213 and set up a career-saving 10-wicket win.

Holder at least had the excuse that he was only playing because Hooper was unavailable, and Roberts because both Holder and Hooper were. But yeah, both are two pieces of selection that are difficult to understand. Ragoonath was probably even worse - they went for Adrian Griffith later and he (very, very briefly) did OK, so why they didn't just pick him at the start is beyond me.

As for David Joseph, again he had some small mitigation that he was only standing-in for Chanderpaul - for the entire series. But I've thought myself whenever I've looked back on it: surely, there must have been better options.

Even if they were just Simmons (himself 35 by then) and Arthurton (who couldn't have been more than a year or two younger).

 

[Richard]

1996 CWC when Bob Woolmer decided to leave out Allan Donald for Paul Adams in the QF against Windies. We ended up losing after winning all our group games.

Um... seriously?

I find that difficult to believe.

 

[zaremba]

Thanks to the diabolical scheduling that had a whole 1 First-Class game (of three days' duration) before the First Test.

Was never going to tell anyone anything significant, that.

Maybe not - although if he'd taken 10 wickets in the match his case would have been much stronger. My point is, he hadn't had a whole lot more recent cricket than the Wheelie Bin.