Selection Theory

[Goughy]

To me talent can be seen as height, movement, pace, great accuracy. However, that is only part of the answer as it would have to be backed up by a history of being effective.

I dont think that aspect should be taken out, just backed by evidence of doing well and of consistency.

I think talent can easily be assessed but must be married to real world evidence to have any relevance.

 

[wpdavid]

To me talent can be seen as height, movement, pace, great accuracy. However, that is only part of the answer as it would have to be backed up by a history of being effective.

I dont think that aspect should be taken out, just backed by evidence of doing well and of consistency.

I think talent can easily be assessed but must be married to real world evidence to have any relevance.

That's what FC statistics are for, no?

Anyway, here's a stab at a selection formula for batting. In this formula:
S is the selection value
F0 = FC average in the current season.
F1 = FC average 1 season ago
F2 = FC average 2 seasons ago
Any seasons spent in Div 2, the FC averaages are automatically halved.
A = Availability percentage for that season (so anyone fit for every game get 100%).

Any season must include 10 games to be deemed sufficient. That also means that current season only becomes relevant once someone has played 10 games in it.
Like I said previously, averages from 1 & 2 seasons ago are discounted to give greater relevance to more relevant performances. So here it is:

S = (F0 x A) + (F1 x 0.75 x A) + (F2 x 0.5 x A)

I haven't yet worked out to quantify previous success or failure in previous test appearances.

Obviously the above only works for batting performances: bowling averages would beed to be inverserly discounted, I suppose. Alternatively, we could use weighted averages - say current season x 2, previous season x 1.5 and 2 seasons ago x 1.


EDIT
I've just realised that the previous comments were primarily about selecting bowlers. Ah well, I'll try and work out the weighted average version for them if I get a quiet moment this afternoon.

 

[wpdavid]

OK, here's the formula for bowlers.
Lots of it is the same as for the batsmen:
S = selection value
F0 = FC average in the current season
F1= FC average for 1 season ago
F2 = FC average for seasons ago
A = fit enough to play percentage
Again, less than 10 games doesn't count so, for bowlers, their FC average will be regarded as equal to 50 if they didn't play that many games. The current season become F0 when 10 county games have been played.
To use a weighted average that gives more value to more recent seasons, F0 is x 3, F1 is x 2 and F2 is x 1. That's why the total is divided by 6.
Seasons spend in Div 2 have the bowling average automatically multiplied by 1.5.

S = [(F0 x 3 x A) + (F1 x 2 x A) + (F2 x 1 x A)] divided by 6

 

[silentstriker]

or Sidebottom
Decent financial history, moderate income, very little other debt, few personal issues and in good form when picked. Basically this guy would get a decent sized loan. You wouldnt give him a multi-million dollar loan as he cant afford it (ie being the leader of a World Class attack) but he can certianly perform if the expectations are not too high.

Can I ask why you don't think Sidebottom can lead the attack? I've been a fan from him from the beginning, and so far, he certainly looks extremely capable of doing so. But I'd be interested on why you disagree.

 

[Richard]

Sidebottom never strikes me and never has as a bowler who could lead a truly top-notch attack.

He's unquestionably been easily England's best bowler and I honestly think at his best he can bowl better than Hoggard has ever been able to. But ideally he'd be the second bowler, not the first - which is why it'd be so great if we could get Flintoff back, as those two leading the attack with Hoggard behind them is enticing indeed.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Kirby and Shreck should never, ever get anywhere near a Test team IMO.

Would really like to hear your views on why not.

 

[Richard]

Because purely and simply neither are much good. Shreck is OK, better than Kirby. But Kirby has always been more mouth than particularly good bowling. The only season he's ever bowled well was 2001.

But even Shreck is just a stock-standard bowler. I've never really been terribly impressed with him.

 

[Pup Clarke]

But even Shreck is just a stock-standard bowler

Sorry, 17 five wicket hauls in 58 matches is not one of a stock bowler, stock bowlers very rarely take 8 wickets in an innings as well, don't see how you can say this.

Anyway why are you writing them off so quickly, they've both got pretty good domestic records which are not much worse than Sidebottom, I'm all for one for giving players who are consistently good over a long period of time a shot.

 

[Richard]

Sorry, 17 five wicket hauls in 58 matches is not one of a stock bowler, stock bowlers very rarely take 8 wickets in an innings as well, don't see how you can say this.

Apart from the fact I didn't say stock bowler, I said stock-standard bowler... yes, stock-bowlers do take big hauls, that's their job - bowl lots of overs in long spells. This enables you to take big hauls. Strike bowlers, bowling in shorter spells, don't all that often get the massive bags.

Anyway, yes, I do think Shreck is a pretty middling bowler.

Anyway why are you writing them off so quickly, they've both got pretty good domestic records which are not much worse than Sidebottom, I'm all for one for giving players who are consistently good over a long period of time a shot.

Kirby's record is really not that good. Shreck's is OK, but TBH I've never really seen why. Very often he seems to be bowl an average spell then end-up with decent figures, and bowl the odd good spell in between.

I'd be astonished if he made a successful Test bowler.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Seems very strange indeed, thought you said you didn't see or care about any county cricket last season, when was the last time you watched either btw?

 

[Richard]

Kirby I've watched loads and nothing has changed much throughout his career. He's never been particularly good.

Shreck I've only ever seen in bits and pieces but I've taken careful note of all matches, and his figures have never seemed as impressive to me as they've looked at face-value.

 

[wpdavid]

Sidebottom never strikes me and never has as a bowler who could lead a truly top-notch attack.

He's unquestionably been easily England's best bowler and I honestly think at his best he can bowl better than Hoggard has ever been able to. But ideally he'd be the second bowler, not the first - which is why it'd be so great if we could get Flintoff back, as those two leading the attack with Hoggard behind them is enticing indeed.

If we're into dreamland, I suppose the ideal scenario would involve an attack of Sidebottom, Flintoff, Jones & Panesar, supported by the batsmen who can also bowl.
I don't think Hoggard is as good as he was, and he ain't going to get any better now.

 

[Richard]

And I think the same thing about Jones (SP) to a much, much more spectacular degree.

If one of the two is to return to Test cricket and bowl well once again, the infinitely more likely is Hoggard.

I'm not sure about all this about Hoggard TBH - seems to me to be quite a lot of rumour-mongering and little substance. I've seen little evidence that Hoggard is significantly worse now than he was this time 2 years ago.

 

[wpdavid]

And I think the same thing about Jones (SP) to a much, much more spectacular degree.

If one of the two is to return to Test cricket and bowl well once again, the infinitely more likely is Hoggard.

I'm not sure about all this about Hoggard TBH - seems to me to be quite a lot of rumour-mongering and little substance. I've seen little evidence that Hoggard is significantly worse now than he was this time 2 years ago.

And Hoggard wasn't great then, itbt. Remember that dreadful series he had against Pakistan? (Admittedly after a decent series against SL.)

But I agree that Jones returning as a regular test match performer is about as likely as anything especially unlikely that you care to name.

 

[Richard]

No, Hoggard wasn't great. Hoggard has never been an outstanding bowler. Hoggard has only ever offered something when things have been in his favour. Unfortunately for him, his career (effectively, 2001/02-2006/07) has coincided exactly with a time when things have been most out-of-favour for his type of bowling. The balls used between 2001 and 2006 summers were piss-poor. I find it hard to conceive Phillip DeFreitas was so much better a swing-bowler than Hoggard as his home-1990s record and Hoggard's home-2002-2006 record suggests he is. If they'd just kept the same bloody ball manufacturing process in 2001 (which was changed again before 2007 and has meant Duke balls are now swinging again, thank God - but unfortunately for Hoggard he's bowled in 1 home Test so far in that time) I'm fairly sure his home career would have been a pretty damn good one.

However, Hoggard has always been a bowler who has been severely limited when the ball does not swing for him. He's had his occasional glory days (Nagpur 2005/06, Adelaide 2006/07) where he's managed to stretch beyond his limitations briefly. But mostly he's been a bowler who has broken out to have decent days often enough when either Kookaburra or Duke has deigned, briefly, to swing for him (Kensington Oval 2004, The Wanderers 2004/05... for instance) while offering some thrift and sometimes some donkey-work for middling (say, 2-87) figures.

But that's it. Hoggard is not and never has been a World-beater. That is why the ascent of Flintoff in 2004 was so important.

 

[wpdavid]

Doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement why Hoggie should be part of our first choice attack.

Looking at his career, I suppose I'd break it down into 3 parts.

1. Early model from 2000 to end of 2003.
2. Peak period from WI tour in 2004 to India series at the start of 2006.
3. SL at home in 2006 to date.

Anyone fancy checking out the 3 sets of stats?

EDIT
In answer to my own question.
1. 22 tests, 79 wickets at 32.98
2. 29 tests, 118 wickets at 26.77
3. 16 tests, 51 wickets at 35.27

That, I suppose, is why the question is being asked. Whether the answer to that particular question should be James Anderson is another matter

 

[Richard]

Doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement why Hoggie should be part of our first choice attack.

Looking at his career, I suppose I'd break it down into 3 parts.

1. Early model from 2000 to end of 2003.
2. Peak period from WI tour in 2004 to India series at the start of 2006.
3. SL at home in 2006 to date.

Anyone fancy checking out the 3 sets of stats?

Couldn't have broken it down better myself, 'tis exactly the stop\start points I've been thinking throughout his career.

How does it break down? Well... excluding Bangladesh and Zimbabwe obviously...

2000-2003/04 (including 2 Tests in the summers of 2000 and 2001 when he was an injury replacement) 19 Tests, 67 wickets at 35. These figures flatter him, grossly - the last Test in New Zealand in 2001/02, and the second, third and fourth Tests of the summer of 2002 saw him take 26 for 536 (average 20.62) without bowling remotely well. Only times he ever bowled terribly well were in the very, very seam\swing-friendly conditions of Bangalore and Christchurch in 2001/02.

2004-2007/08 - 43 Tests, 155 wickets at 30.81. Now I don't feel, as I said, that anything whatsoever changed between the Edgbaston and Trent Bridge Tests of 2006, which is when his average started to go up again. In just 5 Tests out of these 43 did he take 6 wickets or more for reasonable runs (say less than 150 normally, and also 12-205, where I think we can forgive the excessive run tally). There were also 9 games where he took "decent" (in my money) figures.

This is not overtly impressive.

 

[Richard]

Doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement why Hoggie should be part of our first choice attack.

As regards this... well, not being a World-beater is no good reason not to be part of the Test attack. I feel Hoggard would perform the "backup" role to a Flintoff-Sidebottom combination far, far more effectively than would Anderson or anyone else. Then you'd have Tremlett in there too, in an ideal World.

 

[wpdavid]

Now you've confused me. Having said that you agree with my choice of 3 sections, you've amalgamated parts 2 & 3. And as my belatedly posted figures show, there is one heck of a change between 2004 to March 2006 and thereafter.

 

[Richard]

There's a hell of a change in figures, sure - but I don't think that's based on his bowling altering, in the slightest. I just think he didn't very often get the things clicking into place for him that he needs in that time. Not like he was never effective - Adelaide, Kandy - but things just didn't happen so often.

I think you're actually overrating his bowling Mar04-May06 if you consider it differently to that which has come since, TBH.

There was a very clear difference between the Hoggard who turned-up in the Caribbean in 2004 and the Hoggard who'd appeared beforehand. I don't think you can say anything altered, at all, between the Edgbaston and Trent Bridge Sri Lanka Tests of 2006 (though it's true he did completely lose his rhythm early in said Trent Bridge game - he soon got that back though, as Adelaide and Kandy prove).

So in short - I agree with you that the figures tot-up best that way, but I don't think they're an accurate reflection of his bowling if you split what I consider part-two into what you consider part-two and part-three. I think you get the best impression if you use two parts.