If a selection fails, is it wrong?

[Tangles]

Having watched Bailey's debut, I am no more convinced today that he has a future as a test batsman than I was before the test

However, given that the selectors consistently cited the things that he brings to the table aside from his batting as justification for his selection AND that the team won, how is it possible to say that his selection was an incorrect decision despite the low(ish) scores and unconvincing performance?

This is where the selectors cheat by hedging their bets. He was not the best candidate available. The data tells you that a twenty odd average over the last couple of shield seasons means he doesn't get the job done in the most comparable domestic competition.

 

[Prince EWS]

For me there's a subtle difference between good selection and successful selection.

I certainly can't recall anyone ever being selected who I thought had either 0% or 100% chance of success in a game, so even if the selector is completely wrong about a player being more likely to succeed than someone they left out, he may succeed anyway because his chances were > 0. This doesn't suddenly make the selection correct as such; just successful. There's too much variance in cricket to look at these things in a completely results-orientated matter after one game.

I think it's a bit different if you look at it from a long-term perspective though. If the England selectors took a punt on Mills and he performed well for one match then I'd still say it was a poor selection, but if he then went on to cement his spot for another 10 years without ever looking back then it'd be hard to argue he just had some good luck on the day. Even if I felt the process they went through was going to ultimately lead to more poor selections than good ones and was still against that sort of thing, I couldn't really argue that the selection itself was poor in isolation.

 

[Athlai]

For me there's a subtle difference between good selection and successful selection.

I certainly can't recall anyone ever being selected who I thought had either 0% or 100% chance of success in a game, so even if the selector completely wrong about him being more likely to succeed than someone they left out, he may succeed anyway because his chances were > 0. This doesn't suddenly make the selection correct as such; just successful. There's too much variance in cricket to look at these things in a completely results-orientated matter after one game.

I think it's a bit different if you look at it from a long-term perspective though. If the England selectors took a punt on Mills and he performed well for one match then I'd still say it was a poor selection, but if he then went on to cement his spot for another 10 years without ever looking back then it'd be hard to argue he just had some good luck on the day. Even if I felt the process they went through was going to ultimately lead to more poor selections than good ones and was still against that sort of thing, I couldn't really argue that the selection itself was poor in isolation.

Wrong. Philander was 100% according to CPL.

 

[Prince EWS]

Wrong. Philander was 100% according to CPL.

Haha, world's best bowler before debuting. A real triumph.

 

[Athlai]

Haha, world's best bowler before debuting. A real triumph.

It wasn't wrong tbf.

 

[Top_Cat]

ITT: People who should never be in charge of selecting a cricket team.

 

[andyc]

For me there's a subtle difference between good selection and successful selection.

Yeah I think this is a pretty good summation. Darren Pattinson's selection for example, even if he took poles, could never really be a good selection, only a successful one.