What is up with selectors?

[stephen]

Why is it that whenever a team tours Australia, the selectors never pick what is clearly the best lineup for those games.

I was perplexed when Jones and Giles played ahead of Read and Panesar and Flintoff was made captain. I am perplexed now at the Sri Lankan non-selection of Malinga. Why do teams go defensive when touring Australia instead of going on the offense? Haven't Australia proven that attack is the best way to go? Didn't England prove this in '05?

I'm really getting frustrated with this issue as I want to see Australia play against the BEST team that the other country can field.

 

[Top_Cat]

Fear of losing.......by heaps.

 

[shortpitched713]

Which is frankly ridiculous, imo. If you lose you lose, doesn't matter if its by heaps, tablespoons, or bucketfulls. And you're likely to lose anyway, so might as well try to go out with a bang. Seriously, teams put too much pressure on themselves when facing Australia, when they really shouldn't because no one expects them to beat Australia anyways.

 

[Perm]

They opt for the safety first policy and try not to lose, as oppose to trying to win.

 

[NUFAN]

I've never understood how the option could be considered safe picking players who aren't as good as players left out..

 

[stephen]

I've never understood how the option could be considered safe picking players who aren't as good as players left out..

QFT.

This is really the crux of the matter for me. Win 1 game, lose 2 or lose all 3 by a lesser margin. I know which option I'd take.

 

[Speersy]

Maybe it could be the simple fact that the didn't want the Aussies to bludgeon Malinga on that flat Gabba pitch. Probably thought it was better to save his confidence and drag out the uncertainty the Aussies might have with him.

 

[Fiery]

I have to admit, I was gob-smacked when they left Malinga out

 

[Perm]

I've never understood how the option could be considered safe picking players who aren't as good as players left out..

Because the players selected are considered to be safer picks to try and ensure the visiting team doesn't lose. Giles over Panesar was very defensive, and the reason for leaving Lasith Malinga out of the Sri Lankan side must have had something to do with his perceived unpredictability.

 

[NUFAN]

Maybe it could be the simple fact that the didn't want the Aussies to bludgeon Malinga on that flat Gabba pitch. Probably thought it was better to save his confidence and drag out the uncertainty the Aussies might have with him.

Sri Lanka won the toss and chose to bowl..

 

[NUFAN]

Because the players selected are considered to be safer picks to try and ensure the visiting team doesn't lose. Giles over Panesar was very defensive, and the reason for leaving Lasith Malinga out of the Sri Lankan side must have had something to do with his perceived unpredictability.

Giles vs Panesar IMO is different to a Fernando vs Malinga debate..

Giles atleast can bat and England did have a bit of strike power where a player like Giles could have been an ok option to restrict the scoring a bit.

With Malinga you've just got to pick him. Especially when it's him vs Fernando, can't believe it's Vaas that is going to be shown the door.

Vaas is a good nut.

 

[Craig]

Because the players selected are considered to be safer picks to try and ensure the visiting team doesn't lose. Giles over Panesar was very defensive, and the reason for leaving Lasith Malinga out of the Sri Lankan side must have had something to do with his perceived unpredictability.

But how does that work when that theory goes out the window and they lose anyway by a bigger margin?

 

[Arjun]

Giles v/s Panesar: This should have been Giles AND Panesar. It didn't make sense to include four medium-pacers or fast bowlers with a more or less similar style and no significant attack power. A fading Harmison, an inconsistent (often hitting a trough when needed most) Anderson and a totally misfit (he himself didn't know what he was doing there) Saj shouldn't have been there. Moreover, Giles can score a few runs so a place could be made for Chris Read, a genuine wicketkeeper.

Dilhara v/s Malinga: This should have been Dilhara AND Malinga BEFORE Maharoof. Dilhara is tall, powerful, fast and makes some intelligent changes of pace and gets a little movement. Maharoof has no pace, no power, no seam movement, no swing and nothing that you need in a strike bowler. If he was picked for his batting, you wouldn't need a seventh batsman with Sangakkara keeping, though Prasanna got a game here. Besides, it does not matter which combination of four plays, it won't work because the Sri Lankans look a bowler short, too clearly.

 

[Arjun]

South African teams that set foot Australia were often full-strength, but they still couldn't win. Comments?

 

[Craig]

South African teams that set foot Australia were often full-strength, but they still couldn't win. Comments?

Because they talked a big game and couldn't deliever on the pressure.

 

[shortpitched713]

They opt for the safety first policy and try not to lose, as oppose to trying to win.

Thats not going to happen. You're probably going to lose playing against Australia. Its just mind boggling why selectors would think that not selecting your best team would make that any less likely.

 

[shortpitched713]

Giles v/s Panesar: This should have been Giles AND Panesar. It didn't make sense to include four medium-pacers or fast bowlers with a more or less similar style and no significant attack power. A fading Harmison, an inconsistent (often hitting a trough when needed most) Anderson and a totally misfit (he himself didn't know what he was doing there) Saj shouldn't have been there. Moreover, Giles can score a few runs so a place could be made for Chris Read, a genuine wicketkeeper.

Haven't thought about Mahroof vs Fernando too much, but I totally agree with this one. You have to select your best players, and frankly at that point an additional seamer did not merit selection over Giles or Panesar.

 

[Poker Boy]

I call it "Aussie phobia". SL were probably scared Malinga would go round the park v Australia but even if he had you have experienced pros like Vas and Murali to do economy. This "Aussie phobia" shows up in many ways - by putting Australia in at Brisbane (Bribane was a "bowl first" pitch - in the late 80s and early 90s NOT now - it's the ground in Australia were Warne had the best record so that should be a clue) - yet Nasser, Fleming, Sourav, Shiv and now Jayawarne have all made this mistake since 2001. Also by recalling vetrans you haven't picked against other countries (Atapatu for instance) because you have no confidence in the youngster's ability to play against Australia..not to mention England's policy of picking experienced players who weren't fit/right in the head (Gough, Flintoff and Thorpe in 2002/3, Giles, Tresco and Anderson last year) that I don't think they would have done had we been touring other countries. I hate going back to 2005, but the bulk of the Ashes winning team (Bell and KP apart) had played well against other countries in 2004 and we stuck to that...and that's what teams have to do. I bet you, going back to SL, that if that Test last week had been against another country Malinga would have played...

 

[stephen]

Thats not going to happen. You're probably going to lose playing against Australia. Its just mind boggling why selectors would think that not selecting your best team would make that any less likely.

Fully agreed. I just don't understand it and I find it very disappointing because I genuinely want to see the best side that the opposition can deliver. I really do not like seeing the second best side or a "safe and boring" side. Especially when they lose. The 2005 ashes were the last truly exciting test cricket involving Australia (with the exception of Adelaide day 5 vs the poms), and that is because the team that played Australia wanted to win and believed that they could do it. They were aggressive, picked their form players and didn't get frustrated when things got away from them.

Why is something that is so plainly obvious to any spectator and commentator so invisible to the people who count? Why do selectors try to avoid psychological damage to their players by dropping them (which to me would be far worse for their career than getting belted around the park by Australia - at least they'd learn a thing or three from that).

I just don't understand it.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Thats not going to happen. You're probably going to lose playing against Australia. Its just mind boggling why selectors would think that not selecting your best team would make that any less likely.

Because they are scared of going with the 'unknown' factor which could cause the Aussies some troubles.

Maharoof is normally going to be more economical than Malinga - and there is always the fear Malinga could go for a mountain of runs. It is just a 'safe' choice, and a choice that never works.