Worst Selection Decisions

[gap2]

Worst selectorial decision by your country that you have seen.

I support England & Australia in cricket. Been watching watching cricket since 97 & this is the worst test & ODI selections from both sides IMO:

ENGLAND:

- Picking Ben Hollioake & Ealham for test in the 97 Ashes
- Picking Andrew Flintoff in 1998
- Picking Gavin Hamilton on tour to SA 99/00
- The treatment of Andrew Caddick circa 97-99
- Chris Adams playing test cricket
- Afzaal & Ian Ward playing in Ashes 2001
- Chris Schofield & Ed Giddins playing tests in 2000
- Ian Blackwell playing test in 05/06
- Amjad Khan vs WI 08
- Darren Pattinson vs SA 2008 WTF was that?
- Matthew Hoggard being dropped vs NZ 08

Most ENG ODI selections have been crap so i'll leave it there.


AUSTRALIA:

- Shaun Young playing in the 97 Ashes
- Scott Muller vs PAK 99/00. Surely Kasper/Dale or Bichel should have played before him

- Not picking MacGill for 2004 tour to India
- Dropping of Martyn after Ashes 05
- Dropping of Hodge 05/06 - just disgraceful
- Not playing MacGill in the 2005 Ashes
- Gillespie not being recalled for the 05/06 tour to SA instead of Kasprowicz
- Picking White as the spinner for the 2008 IND tour
- The bowling selections in the home leg of 08/09 series vs South Africa
- Dirk Nannes not touring South Africa 09 after Bollinger got injured - instead Geeves got called up
- McDonald playing test cricket
- 4 seamers not playing in all 5 2009 Ashes test
- Beau Casson playing tests

For ODIs. Only the selection of Ben Lauglin for the 2009 ODIs vs SA comes to mind as a real shocker by AUS ATM. Generally AUS ODI selections are 100% on point.

 

[Johnners]

Threads merged.

gap2, before making new threads, please search the forum for threads of the same nature, and post there instead. It's pointless creating new threads such as this one, when there was a thread on the exact same topic on the same page! Not to mention the fact that it's incredibly annoying for us mods to have to merge every thread you make. Should it continue to happen with frequency, I cannot rule out the chance of further action being taken.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

I'm not sure Laughlin was that bad of a selection for RSA and the UAE. Sure he hadn't had all that much cricket behind him, but he was excellent in limited overs for Queensland from what I remember and was swinging it all over the shop regularly.

Not sure what's happened to him this year, but. Injury?

 

[jboss]

Not my ****ry anymore but surely SA's slection of white only team has to be the worst in the history of any team as it lead to the banning of international participation.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

I can see your point of view but I don't think it's realistic. Once the selectors decided to play 5 batsmen and Flintoff at 6 (ie at least one position too high) it was impossible to ignore the potential crapness of the batting that followed. Panesar was not likely to be a matchwinner at Brisbane and Giles was pretty much as capable at playing the role of 5th bowler and holding spinner as Panesar.

The "play your best bowlers and to hell with their batting" approach may be defensible if your 8-9-10-11 is Murali, Walsh, Donald, McGrath and if you haven't got a glorified number 8 batting at 6. But Monty's bowling was hardly as indispensable as that. He was also a rank liability in the field which is a factor that should carry some weight: having a complete Charlie in the field gives off all the wrong impressions and the last thing England needed was the Aussie crowds mocking their haplessness in the field (a la Phil Tufnell). As it happened this is precisely what Harmison managed with his first ball of the match.

Richard's point that Giles hadn't played for ages is the strongest objection to that particular piece of selection. But to be fair it's not as though Monty had done much prior to that first Test either.

At the time Monty was regarded as perhaps the best young spinner in the world. Okay, he didn't live up to all the hype but he was and is still a better bowler than Giles, whom I considered to be a symbol of England's pig headed and somewhat cowardly obsession with "almost all-rounder" types.

 

[zaremba]

At the time Monty was regarded as perhaps the best young spinner in the world.

Fair point, and I couldn't pretend that the selection of Giles was exactly an attacking move. But if you're playing 5 batsmen (none of whom had played an Ashes Test in Australia before) the upside is that you give yourself the luxury of a 5-man bowling attack but the downside is that there needs to be compromise somewhere. I don't think it was unreasonable for that compromise to be made in the spin-bowling department given that (a) conditions in Brisbane meant that the spinner was only likely to play a containing role and (b) Monty had looked toothless in the warm-up match.

 

[Richard]

I support England & Australia in cricket. Been watching watching cricket since 97 & this is the worst test & ODI selections from both sides IMO:

ENGLAND:

- Picking Ben Hollioake & Ealham for test in the 97 Ashes
- Picking Andrew Flintoff in 1998
- Picking Gavin Hamilton on tour to SA 99/00
- The treatment of Andrew Caddick circa 97-99
- Chris Adams playing test cricket
- Afzaal & Ian Ward playing in Ashes 2001
- Chris Schofield & Ed Giddins playing tests in 2000
- Ian Blackwell playing test in 05/06
- Amjad Khan vs WI 08
- Darren Pattinson vs SA 2008 WTF was that?
- Matthew Hoggard being dropped vs NZ 08

Most ENG ODI selections have been crap so i'll leave it there.

Most of these were poor decisions, some worse than others, but Amjad Khan, Pattinson, Schofield, Blackwell, B Hollioake, Hoggard being dropped and the premature elevation of Flintoff stand-out amongst that crowd. Ealham in 1997 was merely an average decision IMO - Ealham was clearly never going to be a Test-class player but there weren't exactly hundreds of other options screaming to be picked at the time and given that you have to play eleven players he was probably about as good a bet as anyone. That he was replaced by Ben Hollioake was a symbol of real desperation. And there wasn't really much wrong with picking Giddins in the early part of 2000; when he was replaced with Cork that was the right time for that to happen, but playing him initially was pretty much fair enough.

AUSTRALIA:

- Shaun Young playing in the 97 Ashes
- Scott Muller vs PAK 99/00. Surely Kasper/Dale or Bichel should have played before him

- Not picking MacGill for 2004 tour to India
- Dropping of Martyn after Ashes 05
- Dropping of Hodge 05/06 - just disgraceful
- Not playing MacGill in the 2005 Ashes
- Gillespie not being recalled for the 05/06 tour to SA instead of Kasprowicz
- Picking White as the spinner for the 2008 IND tour
- The bowling selections in the home leg of 08/09 series vs South Africa
- Dirk Nannes not touring South Africa 09 after Bollinger got injured - instead Geeves got called up
- McDonald playing test cricket
- 4 seamers not playing in all 5 2009 Ashes test
- Beau Casson playing tests

Agree with all of this other than Shaun Young playing the 1997 Ashes - although he could indeed be argued to be the least-deserving player to play Test cricket 1989-2006/07 for Australia it wasn't the fault of bad selection that he did. You have to play eleven players in a Test team and when you suffer last-minute injuries on a tour it's just a case of whoever's around. You can't expect someone to rock-up in a timezone 10-13 hours behind and then just play in the next couple of days. Young was in the country and was a solid cricketer; the other option would've been to have called-up someone on the MCC groundstaff.

 

[zaremba]

Not my ****ry anymore but surely SA's slection of white only team has to be the worst in the history of any team as it lead to the banning of international participation.

Not to mention the other downsides to the policy namely that it excluded some of SA's best players and moreover it was grotesquely unfair and discriminatory

 

[Richard]

Also not really comparable to "selection decisions" as such as it was neither a single case nor a cricket-confined policy - it was a policy that reflected society as a whole. South African society and govornance 1948-1990 was based on the premise that Whites were superior to all other races. Cricket was merely a part of that rather diabolical premise.

 

[Andre]

Agree with all of this other than Shaun Young playing the 1997 Ashes - although he could indeed be argued to be the least-deserving player to play Test cricket 1989-2006/07 for Australia it wasn't the fault of bad selection that he did. You have to play eleven players in a Test team and when you suffer last-minute injuries on a tour it's just a case of whoever's around. You can't expect someone to rock-up in a timezone 10-13 hours behind and then just play in the next couple of days. Young was in the country and was a solid cricketer; the other option would've been to have called-up someone on the MCC groundstaff.

The thing about Young's selection that stood out as a bit of a shocker though was that he was selected ahead of Shane Lee. Both were playing county cricket and were called up into the squad for the final tour match before the last test, and in the tour match (which in theory was a selection trial) Lee took 4'fer in both innings with the ball while Young took 1 for the match but still got picked in the Test.

IMO there would have been more long-term value in Lee playing that Test; he'd have at least some sort of chance of forging a Test career.

That said Young deserved a go at Test level after years and years of consistent performances for Tasmania.

 

[Richard]

I see. Didn't actually know that TBH. Fair enough then.

 

[Andre]

Haha no worries

Like I said though, it wasn't outrageous Young got a game - he'd been a good first class performer for the best part of a decade.

 

[Richard]

Another odd thing is that Young was essentially a batting-all-rounder, whereas Lee was more a bowling-all-rounder - and the slot available was to replace a bowler.

Even though there had been times before and after that when Australia went in with just three specialist bowlers.

 

[Andre]

Yes indeed - that was around the time where Bevan was playing Tests as a bowling all-rounder. From memory he was available for that game and didn't play either and in hindsight the deck was a bit of a turner.

Think it was one of those end of a long tour, give it to a guy who deserves it and will love every minute etc. selections. Plus, from memory, Taylor and S Waugh were pretty big Young fans.

But off the top of my head Bichel, Julian, Fleming and Anthony Stuart had been in/around the squad but had all gone home injured so it was a pretty draining tour.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Had we lost or even drawn the 2005 Ashes, Ian Bell would be head of this list.

He was a lamb to the slaughter. So terrified of Warne especially he literally froze. I felt sorry for him, too much too young........especially for a shy introvert like Bell.

 

[Richard]

Bell might've been timid, but you would've suggested dropping him after scoring nearly 300 runs without being dismissed against Bangladesh? Or would you have preferred that Robert Key have been persevered with against the DeshiBanglas?

 

[GuyFromLancs]

We probably wouldn't have noticed not having a number 4 at all in all but the Old Trafford Test.

 

[zaremba]

Had we lost or even drawn the 2005 Ashes, Ian Bell would be head of this list.

He was a lamb to the slaughter. So terrified of Warne especially he literally froze. I felt sorry for him, too much too young........especially for a shy introvert like Bell.

The only sportsman who ever literally froze was Payne Stewart.

 

[Richard]

We probably wouldn't have noticed not having a number 4 at all in all but the Old Trafford Test.

Never know - Pietersen at four and Flintoff at five fills me with foreboding - does it not you?

Only at The Oval (where he came close to making a King Pair) could he be said to have made absoluetly no impact.

Either way - as said, meriting selection and producing the goods having merited selection are different things.

 

[andyc]

Bell might've been timid, but you would've suggested dropping him after scoring nearly 300 runs without being dismissed against Bangladesh? Or would you have preferred that Robert Key have been persevered with against the DeshiBanglas?

Never thought I'd see you advocating the use of games vs. Bangladesh in selection decisions...