Idiots Guide to Test Cricket *England Selectors Pls Read*

[FBU]

England players should have played a full season of county cricket and have been on a successful Lions tour before being selected.

A player should have 10 consecutive Tests to prove himself which would mean he would get to play at home and away.

We should have only one all rounder in Tests apart from the keeper. The rest should be specialists. The fast bowlers should have s/rs under 55.0.

No player should be taken on tour unfit or carrying niggles. I remember we took Gough and Flintoff to the Ashes and they never played in 2003. We took Sidebottom to India and the West Indies and he hadn't played any cricket in 6 months. We also took Khan to the West Indies after he had bowled 140 overs in 2 years. Harmison went to NZ, India and the WI unfit. Anderson went to the Ashes 2007 after being out for the season with a stress fracture and 26 overs in the CT.

 

[Uppercut]

England players should have played a full season of county cricket and have been on a successful Lions tour before being selected.

A player should have 10 consecutive Tests to prove himself which would mean he would get to play at home and away.

We should have only one all rounder in Tests apart from the keeper. The rest should be specialists. The fast bowlers should have s/rs under 55.0.

Bit of a deluded fan? England don't have a solitary bowler capable of a test strike rate under 55 to choose from. Steve Harmison is the only current bowler to crack 60, with a lot of help from Bangladesh.

 

[Flem274*]

If you are going to select a batsman, don't pick him based on a FC record that shows he makes one or two huge scores and a string of failures each season. Also don't pick one that has almost zero footwork.

Yes I'm talking McIntosh.

In fact, off memory, the FC batting records of McIntosh and Franklin compare reasonably (though Franklin has better consistency but wasn't as good a batsman in his early years), so really we're opening with a lesser Franklin and McIntosh is number 8 material.

Food for thought.

 

[Evermind]

I honestly don't think the England selectors have a decent pool of players to choose from. I can't really think of anyone on the sidelines who seems like he could be a major international success. I watched Amjad Khan bowl his first over and I just knew he was no better than Mahmood or Plunkett.

Is there a Duminy or a Parnell England have been hiding somewhere?

 

[oitoitoi]

Is there a Duminy or a Parnell England have been hiding somewhere?

You're right on the money, the pool of players in England is of a pretty mediocre quality, there certainly aren't Duminy's or Parnell's around the corner.

Personally I put the blame on the state of pitches in England and the ridiculously large number of counties. Every other major test side plays with 6 team divisions to maintain a high standard, India goes further and has 4-way zonal competitions based on the standard domestic competitions to really sort out the wheat from the chaff. However England stick with a flabby system of 2 divisions of 9 teams that's allows an awful lot of 'passengers', players who know they'll never be more than county pros and are just trying to earn a living. The resulting turnover of players is very slow. The standard is incredibly diluted which explains the ridiculous dominance of overseas players, Hussey is a case in point, averaged in the low 40's for his Aus side, in the 70's in England. Atherton recently called for a major shake up and overhaul of the system, however the self content County committee and the second rate, power hungry beauracrats of the ECB remain happily within their own bubble.

 

[Uppercut]

You're right on the money, the pool of players in England is of a pretty mediocre quality, there certainly aren't Duminy's or Parnell's around the corner.

Personally I put the blame on the state of pitches in England and the ridiculously large number of counties. Every other major test side plays with 6 team divisions to maintain a high standard, India goes further and has 4-way zonal competitions based on the standard domestic competitions to really sort out the wheat from the chaff. However England stick with a flabby system of 2 divisions of 9 teams that's allows an awful lot of 'passengers', players who know they'll never be more than county pros and are just trying to earn a living. The resulting turnover of players is very slow. The standard is incredibly diluted which explains the ridiculous dominance of overseas players, Hussey is a case in point, averaged in the low 40's for his Aus side, in the 70's in England. Atherton recently called for a major shake up and overhaul of the system, however the self content County committee and the second rate, power hungry beauracrats of the ECB remain happily within their own bubble.

Everything you say makes perfect sense but that- the state of pitches? What's wrong with them? They're extremely varied. I'd say they probably have the best mix of flat, seaming and turning wickets of all the test-playing nations.

 

[oitoitoi]

Everything you say makes perfect sense but that- the state of pitches? What's wrong with them? They're extremely varied. I'd say they probably have the best mix of flat, seaming and turning wickets of all the test-playing nations.

They're too slow and reward a very a particular type of bowling, i.e. nagging line and length at 80mph waiting for some help from the pitch, or swing with the new ball. Unless a team has a top class spinner they tend to just take the draw on flat surfaces and max out batting points. The variety of surfaces is also in a way a problem, too many county batsmen know that if they're on a green seamer it's not a big deal to get out as long as they cash in (as they often do) on a flatty. Rob Key spoke well about this a while back, he also mentioned that there are an awful lot of batsmen on the county circuit who look good because they can smack around medium pace, however there are very few who can handle the pace of test match bowlers (one of the reasons Harmison delivers some ridiculous figures each time he goes back to Durham). The pitches will not breed genuine quicks because there is little need to be genuinely quick in England. These slow pitches also tend to produce a line of batsmen who are very strong on the front foot but who are very weak vs the short ball. The best surfaces offer something to the quicks early on in the match, then become good for batting in the middle, then rapidly detriorate towards the end, I haven't seen a surface like that in England for a very long time. Though they can produce toss dependent matches, the law of averages usually evens things out. Also batsmen very often when faced with a top class bowler just tend to play them out in the knowledge that some mediocrity will be on at the other end. None of these can be allowed to continue if England want to start producing great players, instead of the merely adequate.

 

[Uppercut]

They're too slow and reward a very a particular type of bowling, i.e. nagging line and length at 80mph waiting for some help from the pitch, or swing with the new ball. Unless a team has a top class spinner they tend to just take the draw on flat surfaces and max out batting points. The variety of surfaces is also in a way a problem, too many county batsmen know that if they're on a green seamer it's not a big deal to get out as long as they cash in (as they often do) on a flatty. Rob Key spoke well about this a while back, he also mentioned that there are an awful lot of batsmen on the county circuit who look good because they can smack around medium pace, however there are very few who can handle the pace of test match bowlers (one of the reasons Harmison delivers some ridiculous figures each time he goes back to Durham). The pitches will not breed genuine quicks because there is little need to be genuinely quick in England. These slow pitches also tend to produce a line of batsmen who are very strong on the front foot but who are very weak vs the short ball. The best surfaces offer something to the quicks early on in the match, then become good for batting in the middle, then rapidly detriorate towards the end, I haven't seen a surface like that in England for a very long time. Though they can produce toss dependent matches, the law of averages usually evens things out. Also batsmen very often when faced with a top class bowler just tend to play them out in the knowledge that some mediocrity will be on at the other end. None of these can be allowed to continue if England want to start producing great players, instead of the merely adequate.

Old Trafford is generally exactly as you say- fast at first, good for batting second and excellent for spinners later on.

Lord's is generally slow and flat, a batsman's paradise.

Headingley and Trent Bridge are decent for batting but maintain moisture so the ball swings round in circles in the right conditions.

Durham's pitches recently have seamed a mile from day one. Really, really testing for batsmen.

The Oval is fast and bouncy, excellent for Steve Harmison-type bowlers and rewarding real pace.

Cardiff is, I've heard, low, slow and subcontinental, giving little to anyone but top-class spinners.

I'm sure others could add more. Where's the problem? One advantage of so many county sides is that there are a lot of pitches, each of which has its own distinct character. Batsmen may not experience top-quality attacks every week, but they come up against as good a variety of pitches as you could ever hope to find. I'm not sure which ground has given you the impression that they're all slow and only rewarding of medium-pace bowling, but it's certainly not true of them all.

 

[Goughy]

The problem already exists before you get to the county level.

I got more repect as a fast bowler in SA in one season than I did in ten years in England. Mainly because I could stand up in delivery and not slide, wasnt bowling with a ball that was wet and not on tracks where the ball left a dent.

Tracks in the UK hurt the development of players. By the time they are pros these are built in.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Know a number of quicks who head over to England, and by about a month in bowl half rat power because bowling quick on the slow decks just makes them easier to hit because the ball actually comes onto the bat better.

Hence why the 50 year olds bowling nude nuts can get away with it.

 

[Richard]

I must admit I thought it was a good decision at the time, and I can still see the logic to it.

IIRC Monty had played one warm-up game and done nothing in it.

Moreover it would have been close to suicidal going into an Ashes series opener with a 6, 7, 8 of Flintoff, Read and Hoggard. I've no doubt that this is precisely why Warne was talking up Read and Monty before the teams were announced for that match.

The trouble was a single three-day warm-up game isn't really anything to compare to a whole 2 Tests (which MSP had done well in the previous summer).

Giles hadn't played any cricket - bar that tour-game - for a year. I just cannot fathom how he got picked in those opening couple of Tests. It was unfortunate that he missed that crucial chance in the Second Test, as anyone could tell his fielding to be infinitely superior to MSP's.

I don't disagree at all about the suicidal nature of going in with such a weak bottom five. (Though in the end we could hardly have fared too much worse if we did!) But you cannot go picking someone at eight essentially because of their batting, when their bowling is so unknown (which, when someone's been out for a year, it is).

 

[Richard]

Similarly keeper's save runs by holding catches, Prior has the worst runs conceeded through dropped catches and byes to runs scored ratio of any of the many England keepers after Stewart retired, Jones wasn't much better. Read actually has the best since Stewart, just shows how incompetent the England selectors are. Look at Boucher, he's never been the best batsmen but he doesn't drop catches and what d'ya know, South Africa win tests because of it. Gilchrist's career has put a ridiculous amount of emphasis on a keeper's batting ability, when one dropped catch off a top class batsmen usually negates any runs they do score.

Mark Boucher is simualtaneously the best wicketkeeper in South Africa currently (and has been for the last 10 years) and the best batsman of those who can keep wicket competently - AB de Villiers aside, who seems to have been deemed never going to keep again. SA are fortunate that they don't have any real question over their choice and haven't for a long time.

England are less so. There are any number of decent wicketkeepers, and any number of decent lower-order bats who can keep wicket acceptably. There doesn't, however, currently seem to be anyone who can do both jobs in Tests. Prior's wicketkeeping is inept; Read's Test batting is inept. Jones' wicketkeeping was initially inept and his batting always was. Ambrose, who made a far better fist of it than anyone since Stewart, did not do as well with the bat as expected and thus had to go.

 

[Richard]

If it had been all about keeping, Stewart would never have earned a single Test cap given that his contemporaries included Jack Russell and Warren Hegg.

The irony being that on the one tour which both Stewart and Hegg both made, Stewart's Test wicketkeeping (which by then was good rather than merely just-about-competent) comfortably outstripped Hegg's. Hegg was very soon superseded as second-choice by Read.

 

[Richard]

A player should have 10 consecutive Tests to prove himself which would mean he would get to play at home and away.

I don't think you can put an absolute number on it like that. It depends on the individual. Certainly IMO a player should have a minimum of a full three-Test series (five-Testers are sufficiently rare these days to be taken on a case-by-case basis) upon making his debut, and if he makes his debut mid-series then he should play the full next one.

However, if someone has looked promising-but-not-quite-there in his first 5 Tests, then by all means give him a few more straight away. If he's looked well short of it, get him out and let him try and sort whatever's wrong.

No player should be taken on tour unfit or carrying niggles. I remember we took Gough and Flintoff to the Ashes and they never played in 2003. We took Sidebottom to India and the West Indies and he hadn't played any cricket in 6 months. We also took Khan to the West Indies after he had bowled 140 overs in 2 years. Harmison went to NZ, India and the WI unfit. Anderson went to the Ashes 2007 after being out for the season with a stress fracture and 26 overs in the CT.

This is all well in some respects but sadly those who know tell you that a fast bowler virtually never plays cricket when everything is all fine-and-dandy. There's almost always some minor niggle that you have to play through.

 

[Richard]

They're too slow and reward a very a particular type of bowling, i.e. nagging line and length at 80mph waiting for some help from the pitch, or swing with the new ball. Unless a team has a top class spinner they tend to just take the draw on flat surfaces and max out batting points. The variety of surfaces is also in a way a problem, too many county batsmen know that if they're on a green seamer it's not a big deal to get out as long as they cash in (as they often do) on a flatty.

This stereotype is out-of-date. It no longer applies in county cricket and hasn't done for a good while now.

The trouble is, as noted by Kev, that the type of bowler is developed at a level plenty below county. The state of pitches at county level is almost irrelevant to the type of bowler (and batsman) produced. It's pitches in club cricket that really count. And these aren't by any stretch easily remedied.

However, to suggest that pitches alone are responsible for the lack of calibre in the English game currently is wrong. There's plenty of other things. Some of which cannot be changed by any amount of good management and administration. Some disadvantages English cricket simply has to live with - namely, the climate and the fact that the sport is a relative minority one.

The best surfaces offer something to the quicks early on in the match, then become good for batting in the middle, then rapidly detriorate towards the end, I haven't seen a surface like that in England for a very long time. Though they can produce toss dependent matches, the law of averages usually evens things out.

These sorts of pitches are the worst, IMO. Tosses by nature don't even themselves out and such a pitch will always produce a toss-decides-match result, if the teams are relatively evenly-matched.

The best pitches are actually those that stay the same - if a pitch seams, I want it to do it all game. If it turns, I want it to do it from the first session. And I don't want to see very many pitches that do nothing for seam or spin - there have been far too many of these in county cricket of late. Ideally, if a pitch is uneven I want it to be uneven all game rather than just at the end, though again I want most pitches to be true in bounce, with uneven ones in a small minority.

 

[oitoitoi]

This stereotype is out-of-date. It no longer applies in county cricket and hasn't done for a good while now.

The trouble is, as noted by Kev, that the type of bowler is developed at a level plenty below county. The state of pitches at county level is almost irrelevant to the type of bowler (and batsman) produced. It's pitches in club cricket that really count. And these aren't by any stretch easily remedied.

In August I agree, no problem, but in May? You have a very valid point about at club level, I must have to play the cut shot about twice a season!

 

[Richard]

In August I agree, no problem, but in May?

Well in the last couple of summers May (and April) have been drier than August, so no.

In any case, mostly of late pitches have been flat and lifeless all season round, almost regardless of the weather. Perhaps it's just a lull which the soil has got into, a la the 1930s.

 

[Furball]

8. Sajid Mahmood is not and never will be a Test standard cricketer. Stop selecting him.

 

[zaremba]

Perhaps it's just a lull which the soil has got into

what do you mean?

 

[Richard]

That's a rather poorly-expressed phrase I used there, admittedly - what I mean is, like in the 1930s, maybe many of the squares around the country have been using the same soil for a long while now, and combined with the warmer weather we've been having in recent times, possibly that's caused producing surfaces with life in them to be rather more difficult than it was up to 2001.

It's only a possibility - maybe executives are ordering groundsmen to squeeze all the life out of the surfaces on more occasions than not. Maybe groundsmen have simply gotten poor at producing lively surfaces (rather an unlikely outcome, I'm sure you'll agree).

But if you look back to the 1930s you'll see how, suddenly, squares around the country just started producing lifeless decks game after game, having been generally incredibly lively for the previous decade. Often the only chance a bowler had was if it rained mid-match.