Being picked when you're ready..

[vcs]

How much of an impact does this have on how we rate players? The examples of Cook and Trott (or Anderson and Tremlett) come to mind. Cook and Anderson had slowish starts to their Test careers and they have to keep up their top form for a fairly long time to push their averages to what we consider "very good" or "great". On the other hand, Trott and Tremlett honed their skills away from the gaze of international cricket, and got picked when they were completely ready to contribute their very best (Hussey comes to mind as well), which obviously helps their own career numbers as well. Having said that, I have no doubt any cricketer would gladly take an average 5 points lower/higher to get a chance to play 20-30 more Tests for his country. But my question is, does it affect us in how we rate them?

 

[Howe_zat]

It's an interesting question, isn't it?

Take Trott and Bell for example. (I don't think the comparison with Cook really works, as Cook actually had a pretty good first couple of years, his problems mostly came later). Most here would rate Trott higher, he's got a much better average, and he's way higher up in the rankings. He's been called the next Kallis, Bell is still just Bell in good form.

Bell, however, has been just as prolific as Trott since his recall and so basically has Trott's entire career under his belt, as well as the (more sporadic) high points he achieved from his previous four years. So logically, you would have to give the comparison to Bell.

I think the train of thought that rates Trott higher would be that there's less of him failing - but there is, it just happened in domestic cricket, so there's less evidence and it's forgotten about.

 

[Prince EWS]

I place what I think is a higher than average importance on both longevity and First Class performances, so I like to think this phenomena doesn't effect how I rate someone very much. Trott's career for example is marked down in my book when comparing him with someone like Bell for being an inconsistent county cricketer who quite rightly couldn't force his way into the Test team for many years. The fact that he wasn't playing Test cricket before he got to where he is doesn't make him of more general value to a side; in fact I think it makes him less valuable.

There will be a natural subconscious inclination to rate someone you've never actually seen struggle over someone you've seen fully develop though, no matter how much we try to remove it.

 

[weldone]

...should not.

Similarly, when a player's form wanes off (but remains at an acceptable level by test standards) due to age etc., it should not affect how we rate them.

For example, take player A and player B (both batsmen). Say, player A averages 60 for 5 years. Player B averages 40 (if that's considered acceptable nowadays) for the first 5 years and then averages 60 for the next 5 years; thereby averaging 50 overall for 10 years. Both are equal players in my book (keeping other things constant). If player C averages 60 for the first 5, and then averages 40 for the next 5, he too will fall in the same bracket.

That's how I rate them. That's the reason I never rated Ponting astronomically highly even when he was averaging 60 or so. I rated him about as much back then as I do today.

 

[Rush]

In my opinion the fact that Anderson and Cook were able to find their way into the test team as opposed to not being chosen till their later 20's / early 30's a la Trott and Tremlett shouldn't count against them, but instead should be a reason to rate them higher than the other two. A fairer comparison could be to compare their averages when they both played in the match, so from Aug 2009 to now.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I suppose the obvious corollary of this discussion is how big a sample size do we need for a player's worth to be accurately assessed? Bradman famously has the highest test average, except actually he doesn't.

Now it seems reasonable to exclude Ganteaume on the grounds that he only played the one test innings and it's too small a sample size. 2000 runs or 20 tests are the two cut off marks most commonly used (Eddie Paynter is excluded by the former, but squeezes into the latter), but are they really enough? There's no doubt Pollock and Headley were both great batsmen, but their careers were both truncated for various reasons. There have been several players who, had they walked out in front of the proverbial bus at similar stages of their careers to the two G's would've had better stats. Indeed, after 143 innings one GSA Sobers's average was still north of 60.

Did they too benefit by being selected at the "right" time?

 

[Furball]

Someone go and find Cribb's post on James Anderson and Ryan Sidebottom. He pretty much nailed it in that post.

 

[Prince EWS]

Someone go and find Cribb's post on James Anderson and Ryan Sidebottom. He pretty much nailed it in that post.

This?

Yeah, this is why longevity is so important, particularly if (like me) you put a lot more importance in a player's overall career than his peak.

The ultimate example is the hypothetical batsman who averages 70 over a 10-year career, then declines to a point where he's only going to average 50 for the next 10 years if he plays on. He'd definitely go down as the better player in my book if he played on, even though he'd average less, as he's still producing a positive output to his team by playing, and the change in career average wouldn't change the actual output of the previous 10 years. As long as you're performing to a better standard than the 12th man could, you're only adding to your resume even if your average is decreasing.

Anderson (who is the ***, I should add) may average more than Sidebottom but, as you say, that's comparing apples with oranges as Sidebottom wasn't forced to play outside his peak. Sidebottom's career is a sample size of his best (and only) 22 Tests and in that time he took 79 wickets at 28. Anderson's best period of 22 Tests was between May 14, 2009 and January 26, 2011 in which he took 96 wickets at 25. Recognising that isn't really prioritising peaks in that way that someone might if they preferred Botham to Imran, but it recognises that Anderson clearly has Sidebottom's career covered, particularly when you add in all those other Tests in which he was deemed good enough to play for his country and performed to a decent even if often underwhelming standard.

I don't consider myself a peak man at all; the DeusEx idea that cricket is only about achieving the highest level of skill possible and to hell with how useful you are to your team across your career seems absolutely absurd to me, but that doesn't mean I don't like to break down performances in time periods and acknowledge that players improve and decline. That Sidebottom wasn't selected outside of his peak doesn't make him a better player than Anderson, for example, as Anderson was of more use to England when he was blowing out his average than Sidebottom was when he wasn't playing at all, and he was more useful during his best 22 games (the entire length of Sidebottom's career) as well. It only really gets confusing when you compare a short career to a long one and the long one doesn't actually have a segment in it as good as the short one; then it's really a balancing act in deciding which was more useful.

 

[vcs]

It's an interesting question, isn't it?

Take Trott and Bell for example. (I don't think the comparison with Cook really works, as Cook actually had a pretty good first couple of years, his problems mostly came later). Most here would rate Trott higher, he's got a much better average, and he's way higher up in the rankings. He's been called the next Kallis, Bell is still just Bell in good form.

Bell, however, has been just as prolific as Trott since his recall and so basically has Trott's entire career under his belt, as well as the (more sporadic) high points he achieved from his previous four years. So logically, you would have to give the comparison to Bell.

I think the train of thought that rates Trott higher would be that there's less of him failing - but there is, it just happened in domestic cricket, so there's less evidence and it's forgotten about.

Yeah, Bell is a better example because there is generally a limited supply of Test-class openers in world cricket, and openers are generally allowed to average a bit less. So taking that into account, Cook was doing a fine job even in his earlier years. Bell however took a long time to blossom into a player who consistently converted his talent into runs. Trott could have been that guy instead, and facing the likes of Warne and McGrath in his developing years! But the English selectors probably took the punt on Bell because he might have looked the technically better player at a younger age. Even otherwise, Trott could have been given a go earlier because Vaughan was really struggling in his last few years with form and injury.

 

[Furball]

This?

That's the one. Can't remember what thread it's in.

 

[vcs]

This?

Yeah, this is a great post. Pretty much nails it. However, as you said, it is hard to avoid that subconscious bias to rate a guy you've never seen struggle over one you have.

 

[vcs]

I place what I think is a higher than average importance on both longevity and First Class performances, so I like to think this phenomena doesn't effect how I rate someone very much. Trott's career for example is marked down in my book when comparing him with someone like Bell for being an inconsistent county cricketer who quite rightly couldn't force his way into the Test team for many years. The fact that he wasn't playing Test cricket before he got to where he is doesn't make him of more general value to a side; in fact I think it makes him less valuable.

There will be a natural subconscious inclination to rate someone you've never actually seen struggle over someone you've seen fully develop though, no matter how much we try to remove it.

Do you feel the same for Tremlett and Anderson, if hypothetically, they were to average about the same from this point onwards? Because, IIRC you were a big Tremlett fan even last year when Anderson-Broad-Finn were tearing it up against Pakistan.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, Bell is a better example because there is generally a limited supply of Test-class openers in world cricket, and openers are generally allowed to average a bit less. So taking that into account, Cook was doing a fine job even in his earlier years. Bell however took a long time to blossom into a player who consistently converted his talent into runs. Trott could have been that guy instead, and facing the likes of Warne and McGrath in his developing years! But the English selectors probably took the punt on Bell because he might have looked the technically better player at a younger age. Even otherwise, Trott could have been given a go earlier because Vaughan was really struggling in his last few years with form and injury.

Trott's career by season in country cricket:

	Mts	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Avg	100s	50s	Cts

2003	9	17	0	685	134  	40.29	2	4	4	
2004	16	27	6	1126	115  	53.61	1	10	11	 
2005	16	27	0	864	210  	32.00	3	0	31	 
2006	16	28	2	1073	177*	41.26	3	3	20
2007	14	20	0	396	84  	19.80	0	2	16	 
2008	16	25	5	1240	181  	62.00	3	6	16	 
2009	14	20	5	1207	184*	80.46	4	5	10

Really never deserved the call-up until he got it. When Vaughan was struggling in 2007, Trott was struggling even more, and when he was finally dropped in 2008, Trott was still trying to re-prove himself in county cricket after being dropped for a couple of games the previous season.

It's a case of him being picked after learning his trade, getting to know his own game and improving; it's not a case of us being robbed of an awesome player for years by selectors or strong competition. Which is precisely why I don't really rate Trott's career so far as much as some. He's up there in terms of the best batsmen going around at the moment, but when all is said and done and he's retired, he was a late bloomer who wasn't good enough to force his way into Test cricket for the first bit of his career when most great batsmen are already entrenched, and his domestic performances were not proving the selectors wrong.

 

[Prince EWS]

Do you feel the same for Tremlett and Anderson, if hypothetically, they were to average about the same from this point onwards? Because, IIRC you were a big Tremlett fan even last year when Anderson-Broad-Finn were tearing it up against Pakistan.

Well the difference there is that I think Tremlett should have been playing, and said so at the time.

Not exactly his fault that he wasn't when he had a better domestic record than a couple of blokes ahead of him at the time; it was just poor initial selection and then incumbency robbing him of his rightful spot. Had injuries troubles too which didn't help, but he was actually dropped after that impressive debut series against India based on poor ODI form which I found astounding at the time.

 

[vcs]

Well the difference there is that I think Tremlett should have been playing, and said so at the time.

Not exactly his fault that he wasn't when he had a better domestic record than a couple of blokes ahead of him at the time; it was just poor initial selection and then incumbency robbing him of his rightful spot. Had injuries troubles too which didn't help, but he was actually dropped after that impressive debut series against India based on poor ODI form which I found astounding at the time.

Didn't they have to bring back Hoggard/Flintoff/Harmison, who were the current incumbents? TBF, he did an OK job in that series, but not enough to displace the incumbents, unless you use hindsight, IMHO. Though I haven't been following his FC career since that point.

Again, I think they took a punt on Broad ahead of him probably because of the young, promising, and "can bat a bit" factors.

 

[vcs]

Trott's career by season in country cricket:

	Mts	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Avg	100s	50s	Cts

2003	9	17	0	685	134  	40.29	2	4	4	
2004	16	27	6	1126	115  	53.61	1	10	11	 
2005	16	27	0	864	210  	32.00	3	0	31	 
2006	16	28	2	1073	177*	41.26	3	3	20
2007	14	20	0	396	84  	19.80	0	2	16	 
2008	16	25	5	1240	181  	62.00	3	6	16	 
2009	14	20	5	1207	184*	80.46	4	5	10

Really never deserved the call-up until he got it. When Vaughan was struggling in 2007, Trott was struggling even more, and when he was finally dropped in 2008, Trott was still trying to re-prove himself in county cricket after being dropped for a couple of games the previous season.

It's a case of him being picked after learning his trade, getting to know his own game and improving; it's not a case of us being robbed of an awesome player for years by selectors or strong competition. Which is precisely why I don't really rate Trott's career so far as much as some. He's up there in terms of the best batsmen going around at the moment, but when all is said and done and he's retired, he was a late bloomer who wasn't good enough to force his way into Test cricket for the first bit of his career when most great batsmen are already entrenched, and his domestic performances were not proving the selectors wrong.

Yeah, that's pretty fair.

 

[Uppercut]

Harmison was balls though, so that was a pretty obvious boob.

 

[vcs]

PEWS, can you post Tremlett's year-by-year FC stats since that India series? IIRC, he was playing in the lower division of County Cricket for some time as well, wasn't he?

 

[Prince EWS]

Didn't they have to bring back Hoggard/Flintoff/Harmison, who were the current incumbents? TBF, he did an OK job in that series, but not enough to displace the incumbents, unless you use hindsight, IMHO. Though I haven't been following his FC career since that point.

Again, I think they took a punt on Broad ahead of him probably because of the young, promising, and "can bat a bit" factors.

I don't think Harmison was injured; I think he'd been dropped. He was later recalled for no particular reason, as was often the case. My gripe, though - and always has been - Tremlett being dropped for Broad after that series. Should never have happened. As it turned out, Tremlett went on to have two relatively poor, injury-ridden seasons at county level after that so it might have actually turned out for the best, but it was still a poor call at the time, without the benefit of hindsight, IMO.

 

[Furball]

PEWS, can you post Tremlett's year-by-year FC stats since that India series? IIRC, he was playing in the lower division of County Cricket for some time as well, wasn't he?

The only season he's played 2nd division cricket IIRC was 2010 with Surrey. Hampshire have been in the 1st division for a few years now.