Insiders and Outsiders

[BoyBrumby]

Insider - Graham Napier, David Warner

Wouldn't call Napier an "insider" or else he wouldn't have had to wait until he was 28 for a call up. He came to prominance & was ultimately selected for our 2020 squad based on one particularly eye-catching performance using the age-old "televised runs count double" selectorial maxim.

Couple of other insiders:

Derek Pringle - called up straight from Cambridge Uni based on his attractive stroke play and is subsequently discovered to be a decent medium pace bowler who can occasionally play a decent batting hand down the order.

John Emburey - twice a tourist on the rebel Apartheid-era SA tours, twice recalled to the test team once ban served. Great mates with Gooch and Gatting, England captains both, which probably wasn't a hinderance in his speedy rehabilitation.

 

[four_or_six]

Wouldn't call Napier an "insider" or else he wouldn't have had to wait until he was 28 for a call up. He came to prominance & was ultimately selected for our 2020 squad based on one particularly eye-catching performance using the age-old "televised runs count double" selectorial maxim.

Cricinfo - Records - Twenty20 matches - Most wickets in career

Graeme Napier is not a batsman, he is one of the most successful domestic T20 bowlers in T20 history!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Goughy]

John Emburey - twice a tourist on the rebel Apartheid-era SA tours, twice recalled to the test team once ban served. Great mates with Gooch and Gatting, England captains both, which probably wasn't a hinderance in his speedy rehabilitation.

Whilst no doubt 'connected', I think Emburey would have played a lot of cricket a generation before and would have played if his career was current. I wouldnt say his career was benefited or advanced by the period he played. He would have played the 'Giles' role far better than GIles ever could.

Pringle on the other hand would never play for England in the 'modern' era, but may have fared amazingly earlier. Could you imagine him at the other end to Bedser on seaming tracks? If Pringle has played in the 40s and 50s then he would have been a legend. If he played now he would struggle for a County contract.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Cricinfo - Records - Twenty20 matches - Most wickets in career

Graeme Napier is not a batsman, he is one of the most successful domestic T20 bowlers in T20 history!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ah, fair enough. Casual observers of 2020 (which I've now obviously outted myself as) probably know him best for his 168 (IIRC) thrashed in double-quick time.

Pringle on the other hand would nver play for England in the 'modern' era, but may have fared amazingly earlier. Could you imagine him at the other end to Bedser on seaming tracks? If Pringle has played in the 40s and 50s then he would have been a legend. If he played now he would struggle for a County contract.

Probably true and May was the chairman of selectors who called him up. He must've played a lot with Bedser.

However, he was called up initially as an all-rounder, in fact batted as high as #6 on occasion, which was at least two places too high.

 

[stumpski]

Insider - Michael Atherton. Made runs for Cambridge U when people still took notice of university matches and also played for a 'fashionable' county. Gutsy player but I'm not convinced he was that much better than contemporaries like Paul Johnson, Allan Wells or Darren Bicknell who never really got a look in.

Outsider - Franklyn Stephenson See comments for Sylvester Clarke. Obviously didn't do himself any favours by going on a rebel tour of South Africa, but has anyone else done a 'double' and yet never played a Test? Not since 1945 certainly.

 

[four_or_six]

Ah, fair enough. Casual observers of 2020 (which I've now obviously outted myself as) probably know him best for his 168 (IIRC) thrashed in double-quick time.

Lol, sorry... Graeme Napier's bowling is my topic of the month.

 

[Andre]

haha, KP spends 4 years qualifing for England whilst destroying County attacks and yet that is worse than picking Pattinson who had made no indication of wanting to be English and had only played a handful of games?

Pattinson isnt the worst cricketer to ever play for England but it is certainly one of the worst ever picks.

Indicated there was no rhyme or reason, and then Amjad got picked just to confirm this genius strategy.

To be honest, I don't think he's one of the worst ever picks.

He'd just become available (so he'd never really been in the frame before, which makes it hard to assess where he was in the pecking order) and at that stage of the season, from all reports he had been just about the most impressive bowler going around on the county circuit. That's a decent reason to pick him I'd say - hardly like he wasn't performing or in form at the time. You could argue that England have a habit of picking blokes out of form, but this guy was at pretty close to his best when selected.

Deserves a lot better IMO.

 

[Richard]

Okay, took off for the first time...

There.

From what I remember:

1985/86 - Terrible
1986/87 - 1988/89 - OK, though he was a useful bowler
1989-1989/90 - Spectacular
1989/90-1990/91 - Crap, so he got dropped
1991-1992/93 - Intermittently played, not much success
1993 - 2001 - Spectacular success
2001/02 - 2002/03 - Out-of-form
2003-2003/04 - Was pretty good, although he saved his best for minnows

Yup, I'd pretty much agree with that. Not sure about 1989/90 because I don't remember it off by heart - I remember Dean Jones was superb for those 12 months the way he never remotely approached in live Tests for the rest of his career - but apart from that it's exactly as I've always considered Waugh.

 

[Richard]

Martin Love - would of played more Test cricket if he was from another country and then when a spot opened up, Michael Clarke came in.

I'd say Love was more an insider than outsider. Good but far from outstanding for most of his career, hit utterly superlative form, very briefly, when a spot opened-up and got the nod ahead of several who had much better longer-term performance behind them.

If Lehmann hadn't been injured mid-Ashes, Love would almost certainly never have played Test cricket.

 

[Richard]

Insider - Michael Atherton. Made runs for Cambridge U when people still took notice of university matches and also played for a 'fashionable' county. Gutsy player but I'm not convinced he was that much better than contemporaries like Paul Johnson, Allan Wells or Darren Bicknell who never really got a look in.

First time I've heard Johnson and Wells compared to Atherton. Atherton was nought but an opener; those two were nought but middle-order batsmen.

And I'm not really up-to-date on fashionable and unfashionable counties because that's now an archaic concept, but was Surrey really less fashionable than Lancashire? (I'm not commenting on whether Bicknell was > Atherton because purely and simply we'll never, ever have a remote clue - Atherton got the chance to demonstrate his Test excellence, Bicknell did not.)

Outsider - Franklyn Stephenson See comments for Sylvester Clarke. Obviously didn't do himself any favours by going on a rebel tour of South Africa, but has anyone else done a 'double' and yet never played a Test? Not since 1945 certainly.

Stephenson knew full well the consequences of electing for Rebel tours and made his own choice. Only way he was unlucky in his timing was in being a player when Ali Bacher was dangling the cheques.

 

[Richard]

To be honest, I don't think he's one of the worst ever picks.

He'd just become available (so he'd never really been in the frame before, which makes it hard to assess where he was in the pecking order) and at that stage of the season, from all reports he had been just about the most impressive bowler going around on the county circuit. That's a decent reason to pick him I'd say - hardly like he wasn't performing or in form at the time. You could argue that England have a habit of picking blokes out of form, but this guy was at pretty close to his best when selected.

Deserves a lot better IMO.

A 29-year-old who's barely even played any First-Class cricket, is 100% Australian (he lived there between the ages of 6 and 29, that erases any Britishness of parentage and birth AFAIC), and who next to no-one knows anything about is indeed one of the worst ever selections for England. Especially when there were several obvious candidates.

Pattinson can clearly bowl and is fairly clearly a much better bowler than Liam Plunkett or Richard Dawson but no-one had any evidence of that apart from years of club cricket at the time he was selected.

If Pattinson had taken 11-87 in the Headingley Test it'd still have been a diabolical selection.

 

[fredfertang]

Insiders - Geraint Jones, Matt Prior, Tim Ambrose

Outsider - James Foster

 

[four_or_six]

Insiders - Geraint Jones, Matt Prior, Tim Ambrose

Outsider - James Foster

Yeah, I was thinking about posting James Foster earlier, but I was worried about opening the wicketkeeper debate. I do think he's been unlucky with circumstance though. Especially the broken arm coming at a bad time.

 

[DaRick]

Yup, I'd pretty much agree with that. Not sure about 1989/90 because I don't remember it off by heart - I remember Dean Jones was superb for those 12 months the way he never remotely approached in live Tests for the rest of his career - but apart from that it's exactly as I've always considered Waugh.

Waugh started off 1989/90 well, then faded against Pakistan later in the season.

 

[Goughy]

To be honest, I don't think he's one of the worst ever picks.

He'd just become available (so he'd never really been in the frame before, which makes it hard to assess where he was in the pecking order) and at that stage of the season, from all reports he had been just about the most impressive bowler going around on the county circuit. That's a decent reason to pick him I'd say - hardly like he wasn't performing or in form at the time. You could argue that England have a habit of picking blokes out of form, but this guy was at pretty close to his best when selected.

He was always available. He was born in England. He had just never done anything before. The guy had a resume just half a season long and he was late 20s.

He had done nothing to earn selection and offered no long term potential.

It made a mockery of those that invest in a career as a County cricketer to build a substantial resume to get selected for England.

Every county cricketer with more than an ounce of talent has had a great 3 months. Pattinson is a decent bowler but what he had done was not unusual. That isnt enough to justify a selection.

An E grade selection. Are there F picks? Probably but that is for another post.

 

[Craig]

I have always considered Stephen Fleming to be quite the insider.

 

[Andre]

Re: Pattinson

I suppose, in a way, it is a sign of professionalism etc. in modern sport. Admittedly, Pattinson hadn't been around the English game to long (and I'm happy to admit, I underestimated how much cricket he had played before being selected, I just had a look to double check) he'd been around the Australian domestic scene for the best part of two summers, playing in a strong state side so he had played some good, hard cricket before selection. Plus, at his age there was probably a school of thought that he wouldn't be overrawed like a young bowler, and possibly had more of a future in the side than say Hoggard (is it true he can't bowl a hoop down a hill these days?).

Seemingly he was a little overrawed, but I think that was more to do with the treatment he copped from everyone involved with the game off the field rather than his on field performance.

But anyway, in regards to the topic, Pattinson is almost the ultimate outsider - within the dressing room, from all reports, with the English media and the English cricket watching public. Had he been playing first class cricket for 18 months in England before his selection, there probably wouldn't have been as much of a drama. I think a fair bit of the issue was an 'out of sight, out of mind' problem - him not playing in England meant he was never really on the radar, and then all of a sudden he is on the radar, and looked like a handy bowler.

However, it was the selectors job to pick the best possible XI available to England at the time, and I think a lot of that was the point - at the time, he was one of the better fast bowlers available who would suit the balance of the side. While the selection was an absolute PR disaster, he's a better bowler than he gets credit for, and I reckon he'd be more of a handful than a lot of blokes I've seen.

Anyway, for another outsider, perhaps Andre Adams from New Zealand?

 

[fredfertang]

As a broad generalisation

Insider - anyone with a central contract

Outsider - the rest

A welcome trend for England to move away from insiders towards outsiders in form - hopefully it will be enough to get Foster in at some point, probably after Prior gets some runs in the Ashes

 

[Richard]

Hoggard (is it true he can't bowl a hoop down a hill these days?)

It isn't, at all. He's probably not as good as he was in 2004 and 2005, but he's certainly still one of the best bowlers in the country.

As I've said a good few times, the only conceivable reason for him being, for the last year, overlooked for the heaps of no-note bowlers (several far worse than Pattinson) that he has been is that he's upset someone.

 

[Manee]

It isn't, at all. He's probably not as good as he was in 2004 and 2005, but he's certainly still one of the best bowlers in the country.

As I've said a good few times, the only conceivable reason for him being, for the last year, overlooked for the heaps of no-note bowlers (several far worse than Pattinson) that he has been is that he's upset someone.

His First Class performances haven't been too good, have they?