Worst Selection Decisions

[Richard]

Ricard totaly agree. As a wicket keeper myself i was/am very impresed with jones inprovement over the years, read was no doubt the better wk in 04 but they where both avarage with the bat. These days the wk has to be an all rounder, if we were to pick the best gloveman in the country then imo james foster or batty of surry are up there, i would love to say kieswetter but while he is a special talent with the bat his keeping needs a little work for test level, but he will be there soon.

Or, these days, of Gloucestershire.

 

[zaremba]

I am sure there have been worse than this, but pre-2006-07 Ashes I remember it being announced that Fletcher had lost the plot and done the following:

Jones in for Read- Jones was a poor wicket keeper who could on occasion look good with the bat. Read was a far superior keeper who didn't look pretty with the bat but had improved vastly with it and done everything asked of him.

Giles for Panesar- The Aussies regarded Giles as a joke. Monty eventually came in and took 8 wickets at Perth. Giles retired with an average over 40.

Anderson for Mahmood- Doesn't look bad now, but at the time Jimmy hadn't played any cricket for months and was hammered by the Aussie batsman.

Playing Read and Panesar would have given England just about the weakest 6-7-8-9-10-11 in their history and would have run counter to Duncan Fletcher's (basically sound) belief that lower order runs really matter. And it's not as though we were leaving out Murali. Panesar had played poorly in the warm up game and spin was unlikely to be a big factor for England in that match.

 

[wpdavid]

Here's a few from slightly further back:

The decision to pick Wayne Larkins for the tours of West Indies in 1990 and Australia in 1990/91; wtf? All I know is that Larkins was a long, long, long way short of being good enough for Test cricket and that that was obvious. I don't know if there were any who had a clearly better case, maybe our friend David could give us some insight there. But it was 20 years ago now () so I'd forgive if not.

I don't remember a thing about who did what in the CC the season before the 1990 tour of WI. However, mitigating circumstances were that we'd lost a lot of players who decided to go to SA with Gatting - notably Chris Broad who, although dropped by then, had sometimes done OK against WI previously. iirc Athey & Robinson also went, so that was another couple of experienced openers unavailable. Tim Curtis had played in 1989 but been an absolute disaster. With memories of the 5-0 drubbing last time in the Caribbean fresh in everyone's minds, they probably thought better of throwing a youngster in to open against WI and figured that Larkins at least wouldn't be mentally scarred by the experience. That being said, he should never have still been in the frame for Aus 12 months later. Did Moxon go on the rebel tour? Don't think so, and I do think he was a treated badly by England's selectors generally. Perhaps he should still have been in the squad given the banning of 3 other openers and the poor quality of the others that we saw around then. Beyond him, I really don't know.

 

[zaremba]

I think paul nixon, not because of talent or skill but age, because of his age it was never going to be a permenant fix, i loved him though what a guy

He was regarded as an excellent "tourist" which is important when you're struggling in Australia.

 

[Richard]

I think paul nixon, not because of talent or skill but age, because of his age it was never going to be a permenant fix, i loved him though what a guy

Nixon was an example of selectors getting it right IMO - a quick fix was needed, and a fix of a specific type. There was no outstanding one-day wicketkeeper-batsman around at the time, so they went for one of the rank-and-file who, though he offered nothing remotely remarkable as a batsman, kept well and provided what was memorably described as "a breath of fresh bull****". He was picked with short-term in mind and the initial plan was not deviated from.

Picking Nixon for 2006/07 made perfect sense, and they did that; picking him after 2006/07 would have made no sense, and they did not do that. Job well done in that case.

 

[Richard]

Playing Read and Panesar would have given England just about the weakest 6-7-8-9-10-11 in their history and would have run counter to Duncan Fletcher's (basically sound) belief that lower order runs really matter. And it's not as though we were leaving out Murali. Panesar had played poorly in the warm up game and spin was unlikely to be a big factor for England in that match.

TBF, no-one could legitimately believe Jones was going to offer significantly more strength to the lower-middle-order than Read would.

And as I said before, although Giles' batting >>>>>>> MSP's, the difference was nowhere near enough to justify the inclusion of someone who'd not played for a year.

And as I also said, shudder-ful as Read-Hoggard-Harmison-Anderson-MSP would've been, I do still think it would have been a teeny bit better than Irani-Caddick-Mullally-Tufnell-Giddins!

 

[Dano.85]

Or, these days, of Gloucestershire.

My bad, have not kept up with the in's and out's at surry there has been so many.

 

[Richard]

I don't remember a thing about who did what in the CC the season before the 1990 tour of WI. However, mitigating circumstances were that we'd lost a lot of players who decided to go to SA with Gatting - notably Chris Broad who, although dropped by then, had sometimes done OK against WI previously. iirc Athey & Robinson also went, so that was another couple of experienced openers unavailable. Tim Curtis had played in 1989 but been an absolute disaster. With memories of the 5-0 drubbing last time in the Caribbean fresh in everyone's minds, they probably thought better of throwing a youngster in to open against WI and figured that Larkins at least wouldn't be mentally scarred by the experience. That being said, he should never have still been in the frame for Aus 12 months later. Did Moxon go on the rebel tour? Don't think so, and I do think he was a treated badly by England's selectors generally. Perhaps he should still have been in the squad given the banning of 3 other openers and the poor quality of the others that we saw around then. Beyond him, I really don't know.

Agree with what you say (and what, hopefully, was selectorial reasoning) about Larkins at least not being scarred by inevitably being trashed by Bishop et al. I'm very glad Atherton did not go on that tour, even though long-term he was clearly miles ahead of Larkins.

As for Moxon, he played in South Africa in the early-1980s but never elected for Rebel tours. He averaged 35.57 in First-Class cricket in 1989, which TBF was a bit down on Larkins' 42.54. But yeah, Moxon with the markedly better long-term record would surely have been the better pick at the time. That added to the fact he had more gumption than Larkins could ever have dreamed of. Most of what relatively little I've read seems to suggest Larkins was a favourite of Graham Gooch's, for some very odd reason.

 

[Dano.85]

Nixon was an example of selectors getting it right IMO - a quick fix was needed, and a fix of a specific type. There was no outstanding one-day wicketkeeper-batsman around at the time, so they went for one of the rank-and-file who, though he offered nothing remotely remarkable as a batsman, kept well and provided what was memorably described as "a breath of fresh bull****". He was picked with short-term in mind and the initial plan was not deviated from.

Picking Nixon for 2006/07 made perfect sense, and they did that; picking him after 2006/07 would have made no sense, and they did not do that. Job well done in that case.

Yeah i can see your point.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Playing Read and Panesar would have given England just about the weakest 6-7-8-9-10-11 in their history and would have run counter to Duncan Fletcher's (basically sound) belief that lower order runs really matter. And it's not as though we were leaving out Murali. Panesar had played poorly in the warm up game and spin was unlikely to be a big factor for England in that match.

I really don't understand this post. It seems to say that we should have picked Giles because he could bat and because it doesn't matter if he can't bowl. Perhaps we should have gone with KP as a spinning all-rounder and another batsman if this is the best way of thinking.

I never understood the picking poor bowlers because they can add a few with the bat mentality myself. Bowlers bowl first and anything else is a bonus.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Illingworth's initial preference for Martin McCague & Joey Benjamin ahead of Gus Fraser for the 94/95 Ashes tour is possibly the worst English selectorial call I can remember.

Leaving out Hauritz for The Oval in 2009 was a pretty huge bollock too tho, it must be said.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I really don't understand this post. It seems to say that we should have picked Giles because he could bat and because it doesn't matter if he can't bowl. Perhaps we should have gone with KP as a spinning all-rounder and another batsman if this is the best way of thinking.

I never understood the picking poor bowlers because they can add a few with the bat mentality myself. Bowlers bowl first and anything else is a bonus.

If Donkey Panesar had not had been dropped he'd be averaging 40 in Test cricket about now. The guy has never bowled that well, he's just had a lot of help from the pitch or the opposition, or both. They were both next to useless, but Giles at least was a very good gully fielder and a decent lower order bat.

 

[Richard]

Illingworth's initial preference for Martin McCague & Joey Benjamin ahead of Gus Fraser for the 94/95 Ashes tour is possibly the worst English selectorial call I can remember.

Bad decision though that was, it was from the usual error of judgement call school rather than the inability to tell basic "he's a pretty good prospect" from "he's nowhere near good enough" that we see with far, far too much regularity.

Had McCague not played a Test on that tour (ie, had Malcolm not gone down with chicken-pox before the First Test) then he'd not be viewed with any real "why?" - he was a decent bowler who never had any real shot at Test cricket. Benjamin had no business ever playing for England (doubly so as he was directly preferred to Fraser for his only Test) but again he could bowl and there are many worse than him to have played in recent times.

 

[Goughy]

Here's a few from slightly further back:

The decision to pick Wayne Larkins for the tours of West Indies in 1990 and Australia in 1990/91; wtf? All I know is that Larkins was a long, long, long way short of being good enough for Test cricket and that that was obvious. I don't know if there were any who had a clearly better case, maybe our friend David could give us some insight there. But it was 20 years ago now () so I'd forgive if not.

David Capel getting recalled for the tour of West Indies in 1990; again, wtf? Wasn't it pretty obvious by then (if it wasn't before he was even picked ITFP) that he was miles short of requirements..

That 89/90 tour was interesting. Of course England came close to knocking off the great WI at home (rain and 'cheating' preventing it).

However the team composition was the fascinating part. It was a squad designed to 'fight fire with fire'.

Basically a group of young players and aggressive cricketers who may not be world beaters but could take it to WI. I still think it was a great idea. When short of class go for the street fighters and youthful arrogance. Nearly worked as well.

 

[fredfertang]

The selectors did the same with Big Bad David Smith the previous tour but he had a dodgy back so only played in two Tests - he never played again but clearly must have done enough in the two he did play in to demonstrate his courage as he was called up as cover for Gooch in 89/90 at one point - Brian Close was nearly 60 by then but he doubtless made himself available

 

[Goughy]

The selectors did the same with Big Bad David Smith the previous tour but he had a dodgy back so only played in two Tests - he never played again but clearly must have done enough in the two he did play in to demonstrate his courage as he was called up as cover for Gooch in 89/90 at one point - Brian Close was nearly 60 by then but he doubtless made himself available

Regarding the 89/90 tour to WI. I never saw Ricky Ellcock bowl and obviously he was injured on the tour.

Was he any good? Rapid?

 

[fredfertang]

Regarding the 89/90 tour to WI. I never saw Ricky Ellcock bowl and obviously he was injured on the tour.

Was he any good? Rapid?

Now there's a name I'd forgotten - that injury finished him didn't it?

Really don't remember much about the guy - I vaguely recall him as a short skiddy sort of pace bowler but I might be wrong

 

[Goughy]

Now there's a name I'd forgotten - that injury finished him didn't it?

Really don't remember much about the guy - I vaguely recall him as a short skiddy sort of pace bowler but I might be wrong

Yeah, he was done. I remember hype around him, Dev and Gus for that tour but I had never seen him bowl before and he didnt bowl in any of the games due to the injury.

Did anyone else have a chance to watch him? Impressions? Dev pace? Greg Thomas pace?

 

[fredfertang]

Wisden 1990 describes him as "genuinely fast" so presumably that must have made him quicker than Norman Cowans who didn't get that accolade

Must have been approaching your pace then Goughy

 

[Richard]

That 89/90 tour was interesting. Of course England came close to knocking off the great WI at home (rain and 'cheating' preventing it).

However the team composition was the fascinating part. It was a squad designed to 'fight fire with fire'.

Basically a group of young players and aggressive cricketers who may not be world beaters but could take it to WI. I still think it was a great idea. When short of class go for the street fighters and youthful arrogance. Nearly worked as well.

And to a fair extent the hand was forced by the aforementioned defection of so many players to Rebel tours. Paradoxically, this loss meant that what had for 5 years beforehand been free-for-all turned into great consistency of selection.

Added to that it was the first away series ever to be broadcast live in its entirety to the UK. Well, to those (I presume still very few in those days) who could afford the new subscription-only Sky TV. It's a series which has always held deep fascination for me, possibly more than ever because England were so badly cheated (both by opposition cheating and the weather) out of a drawn series.