Worst Selection Decisions

[fredfertang]

Keith Arthurton was around and scored a few runs that season. Sure, he hadn't played a Test in half a decade, but he was still around in ODI stuff. Aside from him, Phil Simmons was the only other decent performer really. Sad times indeed.

They do sound better options - was Clayton Lambert over the hills and far away by then?

 

[Richard]

Maybe not - although if he'd taken 10 wickets in the match his case would have been much stronger. My point is, he hadn't had a whole lot more recent cricket than the Wheelie Bin.

Even though a few Tests 2-3 months ago aren't anything to shout all that much about, I'd say that someone who'd played that had a fair case in itself to be a stronger shout than someone who'd played nothing for a year.

As I say, if one of Giles or MSP had taken 10-fors in that tourist fixture, then yeah, maybe we could talk about one having a stronger case based purely on that. But given that neither were all that impressive, I think we have to count that game as a complete irrelevance. And the only thing that should've come into it was less recent considerations.

 

[Richard]

They do sound better options - was Clayton Lambert over the hills and far away by then?

Pretty sure he was still playing that season - all 37 years of age - but he like Stuart Williams, like Philo Wallace, like the reserve wicketkeeper Junior Murray, like the converted middle-order batsman Daren Ganga, had been shown-up as woefully inadequate in South Africa in 1998/99. After going through five opening batsmen and four different pairs in a five-Test series, it's not all that surprising that the whole lot of them were axed immediately the next series commenced. Just there had to be better options than Ragoonath.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

They do sound better options - was Clayton Lambert over the hills and far away by then?

Decent FC player, but a very poor man's Jayasuriya at Test level, and he was found out badly by Pollock and co. in the preceding series. At 37 or so, he was probably too far past it for the selectors' liking. On a left-handed note, Robert Samuels was around FC cricket for a couple of years after that series. Surely he was worth a go too.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Pretty sure he was still playing that season - all 37 years of age - but he like Stuart Williams, like Philo Wallace, like the reserve wicketkeeper Junior Murray, like the converted middle-order batsman Daren Ganga, had been shown-up as woefully inadequate in South Africa in 1998/99. After going through five opening batsmen and four different pairs in a five-Test series, it's not all that surprising that the whole lot of them were axed immediately the next series commenced. Just there had to be better options than Ragoonath.

Stuart Williams went on to score heavily at domestic level though, and was recalled (with the similarly prolific Junior Murray) to play India. He failed miserably.

And as I've alluded to Junior Murray, he replaced Ridley Jacobs on the back of a big domestic effort. He scored 1 run in 3 innings v India. Jacobs was recalled to finish the series, and scored a century a couple innings later. Decent entry into this thread, that.

 

[Richard]

Decent FC player, but a very poor man's Jayasuriya at Test level, and he was found out badly by Pollock and co. in the preceding series. At 37 or so, he was probably too far past it for the selectors' liking. On a left-handed note, Robert Samuels was around FC cricket for a couple of years after that series. Surely he was worth a go too.

Samuels was a moderate FC player up to his tour of Australia in 1996/97; thereafter he was a terrible one.

If Ragoonath was a diabolical selection, Samuels would've been no better. Just should've picked Griffith FFS. And pining for how good things would've been if Adrian Griffith had played really does show how bad things were.

And the real irony is that with Campbell, Chanderpaul, Lara, Hooper, Adams, Jacobs, Ambrose and Walsh much of the core of the fully-fit side was still damn good.

 

[Richard]

Stuart Williams went on to score heavily at domestic level though, and was recalled (with the similarly prolific Junior Murray) to play India. He failed miserably.

And as I've alluded to Junior Murray, he replaced Ridley Jacobs on the back of a big domestic effort. He scored 1 run in 3 innings v India. Jacobs was recalled to finish the series, and scored a century a couple innings later. Decent entry into this thread, that.

From what I remember Williams and Murray were always prolific at domestic level - think Williams averaged almost 50 for Windwards. There's a reason someone so dreadfully unsuccessful at Test level played so many times, and it's that he was something of an oasis in a desert domestically, from what I can see.

Whether he had any case to be playing in that 1999 series though, I'm not sure. But yeah, he might've been preferable to Ragoonath.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

From what I remember Williams and Murray were always prolific at domestic level - think Williams averaged almost 50 for Windwards. There's a reason someone so dreadfully unsuccessful at Test level played so many times, and it's that he was something of an oasis in a desert domestically, from what I can see.

Whether he had any case to be playing in that 1999 series though, I'm not sure. But yeah, he might've been preferable to Ragoonath.

Both were particularly prolific toward the end of their respective FC careers. Williams, in particular, had a couple of amazing seasons, IIRC, and Murray in 2001/02 was far and away one of the best batsmen in the Busta Cup. He still had no right replacing Jacobs, who did everything that was asked of him and more in his career. Especially as he was initially picked so late in his career.

And from what I remember, Ragoonath was picked because he looked good slogging a couple of pull shots against McGrath in a warm-up 50. Not sure where I read that. May have been on CricInfo.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Samuels was a moderate FC player up to his tour of Australia in 1996/97; thereafter he was a terrible one.

If Ragoonath was a diabolical selection, Samuels would've been no better. Just should've picked Griffith FFS. And pining for how good things would've been if Adrian Griffith had played really does show how bad things were.

And the real irony is that with Campbell, Chanderpaul, Lara, Hooper, Adams, Jacobs, Ambrose and Walsh much of the core of the fully-fit side was still damn good.

I can't see Samuels having done any worse than the likes of Lincoln Roberts. Probably the least deserving person to be picked at number 3 in a Test match. Was never, ever good enough to even come close to even a 4th string Test team. That said, I agree Griffith should have been picked ahead of both of them.

Honestly Lincoln Roberts is a bit of a sore spot for me, because I sat through listening to and watching him throw away his wicket countless times to complete worthless deliveries. Often leaving T&T in some sort of disarray. That said, there were some really poor batsmen around the T&T team at the time. He was just the least disciplined of them.

 

[Richard]

Yeah look I don't know a lot about Lincoln Roberts and he strikes me as the sort of selection based on the "well he did well at U19 level so how can he have done so poorly at domestic level? Must just be wrong, he can crack it at Test level if we give him a shot... can't he?" Funny thing was he had begun to deliver, a little, that season, and after another diabolical 1999/2000 started to deliver a little more consistently, but then disappeared at the age of 28. Certainly he had absolutely no business whatsoever playing Test cricket, even if he did only play as a stand-in's stand-in.

BTW I never remembered he'd batted three, thought it was David Joseph who did that throughout the series.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Joseph dropped to 4 for that innings, I think. Because I remember he and Ragoonath were out for ducks before Lara came in. Campbell followed soon after, Adams got injured, Collins (nightwatchman) was out quickly, and Adams returned for a legendary partnership with the great man. Adams, for all his struggles toward the end of his career, was always one of my favourite players. It's a shame I never saw much of him in his prime.

 

[Richard]

Apparently it was five that Joseph dropped to, and it was Collins the nightwatchman who retired hurt, not Adams.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

And on Lincoln Roberts. He never delivered consistently. I had to double check, and here are some stats to support it:

1998-1999: 151 of 360 runs came in one innings; 209 in the other 10 (including a half-century)
1999-2000: 74 in 1 innings; 88 in the other 8
2000-2001: 102* in 1 innings; 364 in the other 13 (with 3 fifties)
2001-2002: 146 in 1 innings; 255 in the other 11 (including a hundred)
2002-2003: 220 in 1 innings; 178 in the other 11 (including a fifty)

So basically he had one average season in his career, which spanned 8 years in a woeful competition. Also, I may be wrong, but I don't recall him playing for WI U-19. So all in all, it was an entirely woeful selection. Name a worse choice for a Test debut at number 3 against Australia, in the last 30 years, and you probably deserve a prize. Not even a Bangladeshi would win there IMO.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Apparently it was five that Joseph dropped to, and it was Collins the nightwatchman who retired hurt, not Adams.

Of course it 5. Not sure what I was thinking. Because, as I said in that same post, Lara came in at 2 drop. I blame fatigue for my these brainfades.

 

[Richard]

And on Lincoln Roberts. He never delivered consistently. I had to double check, and here are some stats to support it:

1998-1999: 151 of 360 runs came in one innings; 209 in the other 10 (including a half-century)
1999-2000: 74 in 1 innings; 88 in the other 8
2000-2001: 102* in 1 innings; 364 in the other 13 (with 3 fifties)
2001-2002: 146 in 1 innings; 255 in the other 11 (including a hundred)
2002-2003: 220 in 1 innings; 178 in the other 11 (including a fifty)

So basically he had one average season in his career, which spanned 8 years in a woeful competition. Also, I may be wrong, but I don't recall him playing for WI U-19. So all in all, it was an entirely woeful selection. Name a worse choice for a Test debut at number 3 against Australia, in the last 30 years, and you probably deserve a prize. Not even a Bangladeshi would win there IMO.

I see. Yeah look Roberts was a diabolical selection after Holder got injured, I'm not saying otherwise for a second, but as you yourself pointed-out, there wasn't a copious amount kicking-around as alternatives. Arthurton and Simmons (both of whom were ageing) and...? Samuels, Griffith and Williams were all alternatives only to Ragoonath, being openers.

I'm not surprised you don't recall him playing for WI U19 given you said yourself that the first time you really followed the game was that 1999 series, by which time Roberts was 24, but he certainly did - in fact he averaged 50 in Youth Tests. Now of course a single Youth Test series doesn't prove anything very much, but it did happen and selectors do sometimes base too much on Youth International success - look, as I mentioned earlier, at Ben Hollioake.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I see. Yeah look Roberts was a diabolical selection after Holder got injured, I'm not saying otherwise for a second, but as you yourself pointed-out, there wasn't a copious amount kicking-around as alternatives. Arthurton and Simmons (both of whom were ageing) and...? Samuels, Griffith and Williams were all alternatives only to Ragoonath, being openers.

Simmons and Athurton played the subsequent ODIs, so why not have them fill into the middle order instead of an aged never-was and a likely never-will-be. But then the WICB seemed to think otherwise on the Roberts front.

I'm not surprised you don't recall him playing for WI U19 given you said yourself that the first time you really followed the game was that 1999 series, by which time Roberts was 24, but he certainly did - in fact he averaged 50 in Youth Tests. Now of course a single Youth Test series doesn't prove anything very much, but it did happen and selectors do sometimes base too much on Youth International success - look, as I mentioned earlier, at Ben Hollioake.

Yep. Just reading his profile now and seeing that he did indeed play U-19. That profile is one of the worst bits of cricket writing I've ever seen btw:

One of two surprises on this team selected for the first Test, Roberts has the look of class about him. Perhaps one of the few younger batsmen in the Caribbean who actually has the mature potential-full look. He has played very successfully for T&T over the last three years [O rly Colin? He averaged about 18 before 1998/99] and in 1999, he is averaging 51 in the regional competitions with an aggregate of 255 from five innings. He made a massive 151 against the Leeward Islands earlier this year.

If there is some concern about Roberts, it is the fact that he seldom seems to be able to convert very good starts, 20's and 30's ,to really big scores. In the recent game before the Test, he was going guns on 38, including six 4's, when he played around a McGrath half volley and lost his middle stump. His disappointment was very visible.

Like the imaginative Manchester United soccer player, Dwight Yorke, Roberts actually comes from the sister island of Tobago. Players from that island are normally treated like distant cousins in this supposedly even existence of Trinidad & Tobago. If he actually makes the final XI, Tobago would probably name a monument in his honor and suggest a national holiday, perhaps without the permission of the larger and supposedly more important Trinidad [Can't even begin to express how misguided and offensive this comment is, for what it suggests about Tobago on the whole].

As a sometimes off-spinner [Roberts bowled medium pace almost exclusively, that I recall], he has been a useful change for the T&T team. Does not normally bowl much but when the chips are down, he holds his own. Has been known to take some good catches in the gully area. This young man, who has only recently graduated from the Under 19 segments of the cricket, could, like his compatriot Darren Ganga, certainly become a force in the future.

And that's all aside from how generally poorly it's written.

 

[FBU]

Even though a few Tests 2-3 months ago aren't anything to shout all that much about, I'd say that someone who'd played that had a fair case in itself to be a stronger shout than someone who'd played nothing for a year.

As I say, if one of Giles or MSP had taken 10-fors in that tourist fixture, then yeah, maybe we could talk about one having a stronger case based purely on that. But given that neither were all that impressive, I think we have to count that game as a complete irrelevance. And the only thing that should've come into it was less recent considerations.

Warm up matches in Australia

23-3-78-3 average 26.00 econ 3.39 s/r 46.0 - Giles
59-10-222-7 average 31.71 econ 3.76 s/r 50.5 - Anderson
46-11-200-5 average 40.00 econ 4.34 s/r 55.2 - Hoggard
25-1-122-3 average 40.66 econ 4.88 s/r 50.0 - Harmison
70-15-201-3 average 67.00 econ 2.87 s/r 140.0 - Panesar
43-7-159-2 average 79.50 econ 3.69 s/r 129.0 - Flintoff
29.1-2-183-1 average 183.00 econ 6.26 s/r 175.0 - Mahmood

You can see why they picked Giles instead of Panesar.

Anderson had one first class match that season but shouldn't have been playing even though his warm up figures looked ok. I think the problem was he was not getting the new ball and was to come on later to get reverse swing when there wasn't any. He improved in the final Test when Hoggard was sick and he did get it.

Another mistake was picking Hoggard, Sidebottom and Anderson in Kandy in 2007 when Harmison should have played instead of Anderson.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Not picking Brad Hogg for the first-ever Twenty20 World Cup semi-final against India. We would've won that tournament had it not of been for that idiot of an Australian coach.

 

[Richard]

Simmons and Athurton played the subsequent ODIs, so why not have them fill into the middle order instead of an aged never-was and a likely never-will-be. But then the WICB seemed to think otherwise on the Roberts front.

Simmons and, later in his career, Arthurton had failed, badly, plenty, at Test level as well, of course. Nonetheless, I do agree that they were problably more likely than either Holder or Roberts in 1999, despite their advanced years. Just would've been better if Hooper's son had not fallen ill really.

Yep. Just reading his profile now and seeing that he did indeed play U-19. That profile is one of the worst bits of cricket writing I've ever seen btw:


And that's all aside from how generally poorly it's written.

And people wonder why us at CW have decided to do some decent player profiles.

(I'd not mind your input on my Roberts profile BTW if you don't mind)

 

[Richard]

Warm up matches in Australia

23-3-78-3 average 26.00 econ 3.39 s/r 46.0 - Giles
59-10-222-7 average 31.71 econ 3.76 s/r 50.5 - Anderson
46-11-200-5 average 40.00 econ 4.34 s/r 55.2 - Hoggard
25-1-122-3 average 40.66 econ 4.88 s/r 50.0 - Harmison
70-15-201-3 average 67.00 econ 2.87 s/r 140.0 - Panesar
43-7-159-2 average 79.50 econ 3.69 s/r 129.0 - Flintoff
29.1-2-183-1 average 183.00 econ 6.26 s/r 175.0 - Mahmood

You can see why they picked Giles instead of Panesar.

Where do you get these figures from? There was just a single First-Class match before the First Test (there was one 14-a-sider but that's, obviously, not remotely comparable to a proper game and is basically just nets in the centre) and, I'd forgotten, Giles didn't even play in it.

Another mistake was picking Hoggard, Sidebottom and Anderson in Kandy in 2007 when Harmison should have played instead of Anderson.

It hardly made a grand difference when he did play, did it? Whoever was picked out of Anderson and Harmison it was pretty irrelevant.