James Vince: Why are the selectors right? Or not?

[Stapel]

James Vince was tried throughout the 2016 Test summer. And it is fair to say he had a decent opportunity, but proved to be no test standard at that moment in time. Going by his 2017 FC-season statistics, I can't see why he was recalled. Yet he was! So there mus be other reasons. Assuming selectors actually do think about stuff like this, there must be something!

In a FC-season where former international great batsmen (Chanders & Sanga) easily outrank all England batsmen, it is hard to see which English batsmen to pick. Selecting the English batting line-up simply is not a clear cut thing. Yet, there are some very promising (young) batsmen that have outranked (based on averages) James Vince: Rory Burns, Liam Livingstone, Dan Lawrence, Ben Foakes & Gary Ballance.

So, what was it that these selectors saw in Vince, rather than the others?

I'm, not saying they are right yet. Too early to say. We all know a horrendous decision can bring succes by pure chance. That doesn't make the decision right! But I'm impressed by Vince's innings today.

What did the selectors see, that I missed?

 

[Howe_zat]

The selectors were not right, but there's a chance things might go okay anyway, which is nice.

 

[theegyptian]

I felt that the Vince selection got too much stick at the time. He hadn't done anything to warrant a re-call but no-one really warranted a spot. I wouldn't of complained about 10 different names they could have selected (lyth, robson, burns, lawrence, joe clarke, livingstone, ballance, some others). It felt like the selectors had got round the table and decided on a hunch to re-call Vince because probably they thought he was best suited out of everyone.

That being said, it's one innings of 83. Hardly enough to determine if it was a success or not. If he goes on and has a long career and averages 40+ (or even 35+, or even just a reasonable job this series) then yes the selectors deserve credit.

 

[Woodster]

Yes I agree I don’t think the selectors were necessarily right, I thought, and still think, it was a big gamble to pick Vince after averaging about 30 in the CC this season and then shoving him in at number 3. It’s a gamble and it was also a fingers crossed selection (most of them are I appreciate), a pick in hope that everything can click for Vince and he can realise his excellent strokeplaying potential.

He’s got in trouble driving in England and not picking the right balls to go at, I suppose they thought with the ball doing less in Oz that he can get away with it a little more and his natural languid style will just allow him to play through the line.

He looked really good today and also left the ball well.

 

[Woodster]

I felt that the Vince selection got too much stick at the time. He hadn't done anything to warrant a re-call but no-one really warranted a spot. I wouldn't of complained about 10 different names they could have selected (lyth, robson, burns, lawrence, joe clarke, livingstone, ballance, some others). It felt like the selectors had got round the table and decided on a hunch to re-call Vince because probably they thought he was best suited out of everyone.

That being said, it's one innings of 83. Hardly enough to determine if it was a success or not. If he goes on and has a long career and averages 40+ (or even 35+, or even just a reasonable job this series) then yes the selectors deserve credit.

Yes at the end of the day he didn’t get the nod ahead of a worthy list of candidates that deserved a shot at number 3. You could have made a case to not select any of the potential players for that spot.

 

[Burgey]

They may think his game is suited to the conditions here. I haven’t seen him bat before, but I gather his rep is he’s pretty loose around off stump. If the ball isn’t doing much and the bounce is true, it may suit him here. He batted really well yesterday. Was good to watch.

 

[Woodster]

They may think his game is suited to the conditions here. I haven’t seen him bat before, but I gather his rep is he’s pretty loose around off stump. If the ball isn’t doing much and the bounce is true, it may suit him here. He batted really well yesterday. Was good to watch.

You can see how his game would be suited more in the Aussie conditions based on this pitch and against the quicks.

I thought he played Lyon pretty well on the whole, he put a couple of boundaries away off him aswell as an outside edge down to third man but I think Lyon can strangle him in this series unless Vince rotates a bit better, be interested to see how that duel develops.

 

[JRC67]

Early to call but if he averages 40 plus it will be inspired. He could be a player better suited to pitched away from the UK.

 

[Burgey]

You can see how his game would be suited more in the Aussie conditions based on this pitch and against the quicks.

I thought he played Lyon pretty well on the whole, he put a couple of boundaries away off him aswell as an outside edge down to third man but I think Lyon can strangle him in this series unless Vince rotates a bit better, be interested to see how that duel develops.

Yeah it was good to watch.

Having said that, if Australia is relying on Lyon tying him down for long periods then he and England have already had a win because he’s seen off the new rock.

Thought stoneman was very good tbh. Rate him.

 

[S.Kennedy]

The only thing I can think of is that he is easy on the eye and I suspect the selectors saw a new Vaughan/Bell classical off-drive exponent at three, but he was terrible in his first England stint and really didn't have a good season for Hampshire so it is still difficult to justify even with his 83. I hope he succeeds across the series - I really do as he is my sort of player stylistically - but If he is going to succeed it will be despite any sort of logic behind his selection. Occasionally these really subjective ''hunch'' type selections will get one right.

By the way, one point about Rocky. His first-class career strike-rate is 58.69 but he has been more like mid 60s the last few seasons. Here he was 33.33.

 

[GIMH]

The selectors were not right, but there's a chance things might go okay anyway, which is nice.

If it goes well then they were right

 

[Bijed]

If it goes well then they were right

Possibly. If it goes well and they selected him despite both his poor test record previously and his mediocre county season because they analysed his game and decided it was likely that he'd be suited to Australian conditions, then they were right to select him (or at least justified in doing so if you think it should have been someone else). Has he played lions matches in Aus maybe for them to make this conclusion. Fair play to them if so.

If it goes well and their logic for selecting him was he bats attractively or, more likely, "Ok guys, who's our No.3? We're running out of options", "Er, James Vince?", "Yeah, **** it, why not?" then they were wrong to select him but have got away with it.

Not that we'd necessarily ever know either way and if he does have a good series I won't particularly care what the selector's logic was anyway,

 

[cnerd123]

I quite like it when selectors pick players based on what they see in their technique/style/temperament rather than what they see in their figures. The old example of Shaun Tait averaging 50 with the ball in low level club cricket because he was so quick that all the edges he'd get would be dropped by the keeper and slips and run away for 4 is a good one. Numbers can only reveal so much, and there will always be cricketers who are domestic giants but just don't bowl a style or have a batting technique that would convert well to Test cricket.

The inverse is sometimes true too. You'll have a batsman like Vince who clearly has the skills and the ability, but just doesn't kick on. And who knows, maybe the reason he doesn't kick on in domestic cricket is because it just bores him. Maybe it's too easy for him, so he loses patience and attempts something daft. Maybe he can only focus when there are real stakes on the line. Maybe he's an uphill skier not a downhill one.

If any of those are true, then it does justify the selection somewhat. If you can bat Stokes at 6 because batting at 8 makes him feel like a tailender, then you can put Vince in at 3 at the Ashes to give him some sense of purpose which will lead to him actually utilising his talent

 

[Daemon]

Generally speaking though, when selectors make decisions like that based on technique, potential, style or whatever, it backfires. It's not a reliable policy, though imo it works best in places where domestic numbers don't mean as much like India or Pakistan.

 

[cnerd123]

It's questionable how much domestic numbers anywhere in the world mean anymore. What country's domestic cricket is being played in conditions that mirror Tests?

 

[Daemon]

They're still by far the best indicators of test quality.

Conditions in domestic cricket matter too but the most important thing is probably the consistency in the quality of opposition.

The Ranji has tried to solve this with 4 tiers, but there are still a lot of dire players in Group A, and plenty of good players now finding it way too easy in the lower groups.

 

[cnerd123]

I think what you get out of Domestic performances is the level at which a certain player is capable of performing over the length of the season in those conditions against that level of opposition.

If your domestic structure is strong (Like the Sheffield Shield used to be), then these numbers can be a very strong indicator of how a player will go at Test level.

But, as you pointed out, if your domestic structure is a bit of a mess (like the Ranji trophy is), then they don't carry as much weight. We've got dozens of sub-Test standard players averaging in the low 20s with the ball or high 50s with the bat in Ranji. They just benefit from the conditions and quality of opposition they're up against.

I think it's well and good to recognize domestic performances, but really good selectors understand the limitations to these performances. A big season for a batsman will reflect a certain level of hunger for runs, a really big season for a bowler will reflect a level of consistency, sure. But numbers alone aren't enough.

 

[S.Kennedy]

There are too many tussles between top-flight test players for the championship to not have significance for test cricket. Where else would you face a seam attack of Broad, Ball and James Pattinson but Notts last season, or bowl against Sangakarra in full majesty but against Surrey? Where else would England (and Australia with its Sheffield Shield) obtain its test cricketers if not a first-class competition? Twenty20? Well perhaps occasionally (e.g. Warner) but a four-day domestic game is inherently going to be more useful at producing cricketers for the five-day international game than any limited overs competition. Also, do not underestimate the first-class games as a place for retired test cricketers (aforementioned Sangakarra, Collingwood) or fringe test players who should have perhaps played more for their country than they did (your Bresnans, Onions and Sidebottoms); these players still play to a very high standard and the skills they pass on to the next generation are enormous.

 

[Daemon]

Yep, it's not just the the opposition that matters in the case of the CC, it's also quality of facilities, training, skills transfer and general professionalism that are essential to set a player up for success.

I think *****'s point about domestic numbers not having much meaning only sort of apply to poor structures.

If you look at a domestic scene like Pakistan's where they've been using a piss poor domestically made ball (Grays) and have pitches that are used 15-20 days a month*, then conditions really are so different from international cricket that it's difficult to judge on numbers. You also have a few dozen bowlers averaging in the 20s which just makes a mockery of the stats. This is the reason why they rely more on watching the players, word of mouth from coaches, academies and you also tend to see the word 'talent' thrown about a lot more when it comes to selection.

But despite all that I think they still use Patron Trophy stats to sort of get a base pool of players that they think are international standard, and then work from there?


*Read an article recently where apparently Inzy was trying to change things. Also not sure whether the same balls and pitches used in the QeA are used in the Patron's Trophy though I imagine they are.

 

[S.Kennedy]

***** thinks the Hong Kong Blitz should decide a player's test credentials.