Possible way of dealing with dead matches.

[GIMH]

I do agree in a sense with Richard in that teams should always be building towards the next tournament. I don't think players should be immediately discarded though, as I think it's important to transition your team. Sure, a player might not be around for the next WC, but their experience can help others who are brought into a team whilst their replacement is sought after.

[Richard]

If their experience can help, enlist them in a mentoring\coaching role. I don't, personally, see any use in a player actually playing - ie, helping to influence results - if they're only going to be doing it in the short-term. And I certainly don't see any sense in a player continuing to play after they can no longer perform to the requisite standard just to pass on advice.

I've never believed in a player being "discarded", in the sense of just going straight from in to out, of a side. If their presence around the dressing-room can continue to be a positive, it should be maintained. But my approach to selection is that the XI on the field should, in a Test, be the best available; and in a ODI, the best available XI drawn from players who have a realistic prospect of playing in the next World Cup, whenever that may be.

[GIMH]

With that approach you're also ignoring the effect that results can have on confidence, which is obviously an important part of buiding a team.

[Richard]

Hmm, perhaps again it's my "I really don't care what the results are now as long as they're good in the World Cup" mindset impacting there.

It'd not affect my morale at all to be in a team that was losing ATT, if I thought I was doing a good job of building for the next WC. It might, of course, affect that of any given pereson depending on their mindset.

TBH, it's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy - if your team has good players, it's going to win matches. If it doesn't, it won't. And you won't turn bad players into good ones just by giving them matches - they have to work at their own games, and the vast majority of that work will be done off the field. Ideally, of course, you don't want a player to be playing ODI cricket before he's good enough.

[GIMH]

But what if you believe he will be good enough in the next WC? Would it not make a much sense to include them as to exclude those who won't be around?

[Richard]

As I said - ideally selection will involve as little guesswork as possible, so instead of picking someone because you hope they'll be good enough by the next Cup you'll pick them because they're good enough "now" and have prospects of being so for said next Cup. But if someone shows some promise and has prospects for said next Cup, they're preferable to someone who clearly has negligable chance of still being ODI-class by that time.

Sadly, sometimes there is no way to achieve both of these objectives. Sometimes it is not possible to pick eleven players with prospects for the next Cup with a particularly convincing case as of whenever "now" is.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Richard

Hmm, perhaps again it's my "I really don't care what the results are now as long as they're good in the World Cup" mindset impacting there.

It'd not affect my morale at all to be in a team that was losing ATT, if I thought I was doing a good job of building for the next WC. It might, of course, affect that of any given pereson depending on their mindset.

TBH, it's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy - if your team has good players, it's going to win matches. If it doesn't, it won't. And you won't turn bad players into good ones just by giving them matches - they have to work at their own games, and the vast majority of that work will be done off the field. Ideally, of course, you don't want a player to be playing ODI cricket before he's good enough.

Have to say, I think the bolded part is rubbish.

It would take a seriously mentally tough person to not let constant defeats affect their mindset, regardless of how they're performing as individuals.

[Richard]

Nah, it'd just take someone - like me - who realised the result wasn't of very much importance.

I play weekday friendlies with great regularity and I almost never give a damn about the result, if we lose 6 in a row it doesn't bother me. But even just losing a couple in a row in the Saturday\Sunday league is something of a downer for me. And just so much as a poor over on a personal level is a real downer - I'll often have to kick my hat down to fine-leg or throw my wristband somewhere to take the anger out. I take cricket matches very seriously, if there's (to my mind) something at stake. If there isn't, I don't take it remotely seriously and all I really care about is performing to my own best.

[NUFAN]

Yeah I'm pretty sure Richard that Cricketers take playing International matches seriously.

Your weekday friendlies would be more like a training session, your weekend matches like an ODI.

Also, if you keep losing their is no way everyone is going to retain their position come World Cup time. That is obvious for any country that has hopes of doing well in the Cup.

[Richard]

Of course it is - which is why, as I say, it's something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. If your players are looking like they're going to be good in the near-ish future (>4 years isn't really all that long) then it's a given that they've got to be doing something right here and now.

The point, I suppose, is simply that I honestly don't mind if my side is losing ODIs if I think they're learning. Learning that Vikram Solanki is not ODI-class is as important as learning that Kevin Pietersen is.

Unfortunate thing for England is that their selectors have generally been simply unable to learn the lessons they're trying to.

[slippyslip]

Originally Posted by slugger

I wonder if it would be worth considering a tri nations type cup like the rugby. NZ/Aust/SA
each country host one country for 3 mach series. the leading team on table host the final which is a 3 match final. the followering year the away games switch over.

year one;
In NZ
NZ vs Aust.
In Aust.
Aust vs SA
In SA
SA vs NZ

year two
In NZ
NZ vs SA
In Aust
Aust vs NZ
In SA
SA vs Aust

back to year one and repeat.

I like this idea.