Idiots Guide to Test Cricket *England Selectors Pls Read*

[Top_Cat]

I don't disagree with this at all. However, I generally think selectors should comment on issues they know about which haven't (yet) reached public eye.

It's not as if they gain anything by keeping things hushed-up about what skills it was a player was demonstrating that was out of the public eye.

It's not that simple. Sometimes the brain can process reasons for why something is so before the mind can articulate them. It's why, despite burning up SS in the 90's, Stuart Law only got one Test. Or why Jamie Cox didn't even get one. Or why Mike Hussey didn't get a Test before he was 29.

Sometimes blokes just feel like a better choice, even if you're not sure why at the time. It's not scientific but so often, it works. Sometimes it doesn't (Lehmann, Love). Some people just have 'it', some don't. Phil Hughes does, Chris Rogers has less of 'it'. Similar Pete Siddle vs Bolly. If selection was as easy as picking the bloke with the most runs/wickets, well, it wouldn't be a job. Plus there's the personlity balance, etc.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Ind33d. His condition wasn't ideal.

However, I presume if he wasn't fit to play he'd not have played said 2 games. I heard no suggestion of any after-effects in said 2 games.

He's overstressed his back and is now injured again FTR.

EDIT: Beaten.

Douglas Bollinger beyond all question. I'd also say Nathan Bracken, though there's a case for him not to be considered. And at the time I'd have said Ashley Noffke, though subsequently I've learnt of legit reasons for his exclusion.

All 3 of them have been injured over the last few weeks. Noffke was injured when he was originally picked in India as well.

 

[Richard]

It's not that simple. Sometimes the brain can process reasons for why something is so before the mind can articulate them. It's why, despite burning up SS in the 90's, Stuart Law only got one Test. Or why Jamie Cox didn't even get one. Or why Mike Hussey didn't get a Test before he was 29.

Sometimes blokes just feel like a better choice, even if you're not sure why at the time. It's not scientific but so often, it works. Sometimes it doesn't (Lehmann, Love). Some people just have 'it', some don't. Phil Hughes does, Chris Rogers has less of 'it'. Similar Pete Siddle vs Bolly. If selection was as easy as picking the bloke with the most runs/wickets, well, it wouldn't be a job. Plus there's the personlity balance, etc.

I'd say most selectors, when bringing in un-picked players, apply too much "does he have 'it'" and not enough "how's his figures" TBH. As I've said before, people are very wont to remember every single one of the few successes and gloss-over most of the countless failures of the method you advocate as "so often successful".

The "don't pick a **** as he'd disrupt the dressing-room and very possibly put a dampener on others' performances" is of course a fair point and seems to be the reason Ashley Noffke has failed to get a gig for Australia, as well as plenty of others for plenty of other teams.

Also, the reason why selection is a job is that you have to decide when to leave someone out. Who to bring in should be the easy part; who to leave-out and when requires far more ambiguity and . There's also the very-often-overlooked part that good selectors need to be good at letting a player down. Someone who's dropped and made to feel less bad about it by a good selector is that much more likely to come back than someone who feels like he's been kicked off the bus and no-one's bothered about it.

BTW, on the Rogers note, I probably feel stronger about it than I normally would due to ol' Bucky's Exeter CC connections and the fact that everyone but everyone over here remembers him as a cracking guy who deserves better than he's gotten.

 

[Richard]

All 3 of them have been injured over the last few weeks. Noffke was injured when he was originally picked in India as well.

I'm not talking about any recent picks; from his 3rd Test onwards Siddle has 100% earned every game he's played. But to pick him as Clark's replacement on the first couple of occasions they did was plain diabolical.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Yeah, there was more to it though I reckon, with Clark's elbow problems. He couldn't even throw the ball in in the second test, doubt he was okay for the fourth.

 

[oldmancraigy]

Douglas Bollinger beyond all question. .

I don't get the logic?

Didn't you say that bowlers with a first class average of over 30 shouldn't be considered at all?

Bollinger had a horror start to his career, and is STILL currently over 30 - despite 3 outstanding seasons.

I do concur with you though - Bollinger should've been picked ahead of "the Siddle" in India. But at worst the 2 were vying neck and neck for a bowling spot after both tearing apart batting lineups the previous shield season.

Siddle was in his second season too - turns out it was a very astute selection; but I maintain that Bollinger could also be a very astute selection - hopefully he'll get the 3rd test to show his wares - he's a definite wicket taker at test level - as he showed with all the dropped chances/ lbws given not out in Sydney.

 

[oldmancraigy]

Sometimes this can result in good First-Class players failing to become good Test players, but under ANY circumstances a proven First-Class player is more likely to be successful in a Test starting tomorrow than an unproven or proven-crap one.

This is the only thing that I can't understand in your line of argument against Phil Hughes!

Hughes was at least the second best batsman in the shield this season before his selection (Klinger would be the one ahead of him) - and brief outings in the previous season showed the same sort of form that he had this season.

For the better part of 2 seasons, he was a FC batsman averaging 60 --> and at only 20 years of age!! Generally the young guys come in and make some good scores, but also chalk up some ugly innings - to average over 45 as a young player is a remarkable achievement (Michael Clarke picked for Australia on the back of FC centuries, but his overall record was under 45 when selected).
Hughes' record isn't just remarkable, it's astonishing that, at 20, he should be bettering the likes of Chris Rogers in the shield --> with the retirement of Hayden it opened up a spot and it was an absolute no brainer to pick Hughes.
Especially when one considers that he scored so many runs that he forced the selectors to come and have a look, and then when they turned up scored a century and 80*.

Siddle's 24 FC average with the ball is also pretty special for a younger player - and, with the advantage of hindsight, I reckon I preferred Bollinger simply because he's a NSWman! The 2 bowlers had been pretty even over the last 2 seasons, but Siddle had the youth on his side, and was only going to get better against top line competition.


So - on the back of that essay, my selection tip would be:
if 2 players are fairly evenly matched, strongly consider the younger
(i) because they'll further improve their game against top level competition
(ii) because it's an investment - they'll be around at the top level for longer

Normally when a player has 20-30 tests under his belt he starts to feel like he 'belongs' at the top level and isn't so much playing for his spot, but rather out to dominate the opposition.
Giving a 32yr old 2 years might mean that you're now ready to choose a new player.
Giving a 22 year old 2 years then gives you a feasible 8-10 more years of their best play at the top level.

Having said all that - I think McGain was a good selection

 

[Zinzan]

2. Always enforce the follow on

Disagree with this, not Always, depends on the wicket & many other factors

 

[gwo]

Rogers has been treated utterly shabbily by Australia's selectors.

Actually I AWTA.

 

[Goughy]

Disagree with this, not Always, depends on the wicket & many other factors

Go on then. Give me a typical scenario when you would not enforce the follow-on?

Ill bet that if it is a legit reason then it is based on rare circumstances.

Enforcing the follow-on is a negative move that makes winning the game based on guess work (how long to bat again?, how many runs are needed to make it safe? how long do we need to bowl the opposition out again?). Almost always incorrect decisions are made. Not enforcing the follow-on reduces the chance of winning the game.

 

[aussie]

Douglas Bollinger beyond all question. I'd also say Nathan Bracken, though there's a case for him not to be considered. And at the time I'd have said Ashley Noffke, though subsequently I've learnt of legit reasons for his exclusion.

And clearly for Hughes, there's Jaques and Rogers.

Hahaha, GTFOH naynnn

 

[Goughy]

3. Never select a specialist seam bowler with a career FC average (outside Tests) of over 30.
Just don't. If that is the best available then you have bigger issues.

Given the observations, I think it is fair to say that this needs qualifying
a) This primarily relates to English bowlers. Many of the examples mentioned have been Australian. That may be a different situation where FC cricket is stronger than Test cricket.

b) This rule can possibly be ignored if there is a dearth of fast bowling talent and a particular bowler possesses a unique skill set. This should still be a rare occurance though.

(and it is a little tongue-in-cheek )

 

[thierry henry]

Anyway, i really just interpreted that post as "I find it funny that Goughy can say things that i agree with and others that i don't agree with."

nay

Reckon Goughy is quite notable for the generally studied sensibleness incongruously mixed with "I love my cricketers to be balls to the wall and have plenty of chest hair" sentiment.

 

[Richard]

I don't get the logic?

Didn't you say that bowlers with a first class average of over 30 shouldn't be considered at all?

No. I said that should prefaced with "with rare exceptions". Bollinger (like Clark) would be one such.

 

[Uppercut]

Go on then. Give me a typical scenario when you would not enforce the follow-on?

Ill bet that if it is a legit reason then it is based on rare circumstances.

Enforcing the follow-on is a negative move that makes winning the game based on guess work (how long to bat again?, how many runs are needed to make it safe? how long do we need to bowl the opposition out again?). Almost always incorrect decisions are made. Not enforcing the follow-on reduces the chance of winning the game.

I wouldn't have enforced it had England bowled the West Indies out for 300~ in the first innings of their last match. The pitch was always going to be at its hardest for batting in the 4th innings.

 

[honestbharani]

It's not that simple. Sometimes the brain can process reasons for why something is so before the mind can articulate them. It's why, despite burning up SS in the 90's, Stuart Law only got one Test. Or why Jamie Cox didn't even get one. Or why Mike Hussey didn't get a Test before he was 29.

Sometimes blokes just feel like a better choice, even if you're not sure why at the time. It's not scientific but so often, it works. Sometimes it doesn't (Lehmann, Love). Some people just have 'it', some don't. Phil Hughes does, Chris Rogers has less of 'it'. Similar Pete Siddle vs Bolly. If selection was as easy as picking the bloke with the most runs/wickets, well, it wouldn't be a job. Plus there's the personlity balance, etc.

Cricket is more than juz numbers and science. It is as much an art as it is a science. Sometimes you juz have to go with gut feelings and hunches, because that is just how the game itself is... unpredictable...

 

[Richard]

Going with hunches over what is proven will land you with less success than going with what is proven over hunches. It really is as simple as that.

Sometimes there is sufficiently little proven that a hunch is required. This, however, is in a minority of cases.

 

[Matt79]

What annoys me in this conversation is the writing off of anything other than selections based on years of FC consistency as a 'gut feel', 'hunch' or a 'random selection'.

Believe it or not, some people have a talent for looking at a player and being able to make a judgement re their technique, attitude and prospects for success. Calling these judgement hunches or gambles is inaccurate and misleading.

 

[oldmancraigy]

No. I said that should prefaced with "with rare exceptions". Bollinger (like Clark) would be one such.

Fair point - I did say that I concurred with you!!

I mostly agree with your criteria - excpet on the case of the "whiz kid" - if they're good enough they're old enough. Just gotta make sure they're good enough (and I think one can do that over the course of 12-18 months)

 

[Uppercut]

What annoys me in this conversation is the writing off of anything other than selections based on years of FC consistency as a 'gut feel', 'hunch' or a 'random selection'.

Believe it or not, some people have a talent for looking at a player and being able to make a judgement re their technique, attitude and prospects for success. Calling these judgement hunches or gambles is inaccurate and misleading.

You say this, but then simply going with the consistent FC performers seems to have a much higher rate of success than, "oh he looks good, we'll take him". I'm not saying that's how they should do it, but it would work better than what they're doing now.

It's especially true of batsmen. Too often the classical-technique player gets picked over the guy who actually scores runs. I'm much more inclined to give the selectors the right to make judgement calls on bowlers.