marc71178 said:
My point about Ramprakash (and to a lesser extent Hick) is that he is so dominant in County Cricket, but that is more owing to the lack of quality opposition than anything else.
marc71178 said:
I've never said pick players who can't score runs, just that the ones who score the most runs aren't necessarily the best players, and that is the selectors jobs to pick who they can see have the mental ability and technique to play at the highest level - as the examples of the likes of Vaughan and Trescothick have proven.
You can learn a lot from looking at averages. Many players are picked on mythical potential and how they look rather than how they perform.
Domestic averages are always a great place to start when evaluating talent and then you can add value judgements and calls based on personal preference. However, ignore averages at your peril.
For the period beginning English summer 1995-2005 England gave debuts to 18 players that were expected to make runs (batsmen, keepers and allrounders) that have career List A batting averages of under 30. The list includes players such as Vaughan, Solanki, Key etc as well as keepers Read, Jones, Prior, Foster
How many average over 30 in ODIs? A big fat ZERO. To repeat that, of 18 players expected to make runs that average under 30 in List A none of them averaged over 30 in ODIs.
In the same time period 5 players were picked with list A averages over 35. Of the 5, 4 averaged over 35 in ODIs (3 over 40) and the only one not to average over 35 was Adams and he was only given 5 games.
Is it any surprise that players fail when they have no chance in the first place.
To make things a little overly simple, a player that averages under 30 in List A will do the same in ODIs and a player that averages over 35 will do the same.
The value judgements come in for the players averaging 30-35.