WAT Selector Criteria

[admin]

Originally Posted by Andy Mellon

he is totally incapable of building an innings.

I'm bemused by this comment. Prior is just 23 and already has 11 1st class centuries and 25 fifties. That doesn't look like he is totally incapable of building an innings to me.

He bats the way he does in one-day cricket because he has adopted the pinch-hitter role.

[Andy Mellon]

There's a difference between building an innings and trying to clatter the ball to all parts using hand-eye co-ordination! I was making the point that Prior's technique leaves a lot to be desired. Sure, when it comes off he may score a century, but given the current England test line up, i think most people would be agreed that England currently lack an anchor man and that the England test batting line up can be fragile in the middle order. An ability to build an innings like Graham Thorpe or Nasser Hussain, or Geoff Boycott before them is very different from a destructive batsman like Pietersen or Flintoff. If people have criticised Marcus Trescothick for lack of technique in the past, I can't wait to hear the criticism for Prior when he fails to a ball he shouldn't have got out to. Basically, Prior would not compliment the current England test team very well.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Andy Mellon

i think most people would be agreed that England currently lack an anchor man

Andy I agree they do lack someone like Thorpe, however, I would suggest they are looking in the wrong place if they expect their keeper, batting at 7 or 8, to be that anchor!

[Rachael]

Despite my reputation I don't actually have a major issue with those who look to put bat to ball: I've no issues with Pietersen playing in the senior side and I wouldn't have an issue with a young Gower walking striaght in there. That said... I very much DO have a problem with the idea of Prior getting into a WAT 'A' side: he ain't in the class of Shah, Joyce and the like with the bat and he can't 'keep.

[admin]

Flintoff couldn't bat or bowl effectively at Test level for a number of years but he had the underlying talent to make it. I suspect Prior will keep developing and force his way into the WAT A team someday if he hasn't already been disqualified for playing too many Test matches.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by admin

While flanflinger is griping about the exclusion of Plunkett in the A team I'm still sour over the omission of Prior who is batting 2nd in the one-dayers and looks certain to get a Test call-up someday. I'll be pushing for him again next year because he is a class act.

I am griping about that. But my biggest problem is that the WAT A team was selected by people who have never watched a day of F/C Cricket in their lives!!

How can they judge a player they have never seen. I have 100% respect for the opions of people like Mellons, as like me, he actually watches F/C Cricket, and so he can judge a player by means other than a paper average.

When I saw Durham play earlier this year Plunkett stood out, nevermind the figures I thought he had talent. Yet we argue about players based purely on Average and not on their obvious ability. The result was we got Davies, who may have the figures, but IMO was very ordinary, put it this way Davies will never play for England so why have him in our A team!!

Despite me pointing this out Rachael comes up with a set of figures that "proves" her point, but misses the first ODI figures and completly ignore his batting.

There is an old saying about stats and lies which we all know.

All I am sying is to stop us picking another team that looks bizarre, lets get WAT memebers commited to actually watching the players and making a proper case based both on stats and observation. That will mean that certain memebers are excluded, but it may make for a more accurate "A" team.

[Rachael]

Flanflinger... you're suggesting that my view of who's worth picking is going to be changed if I attend 5-6 county games... during which I'll be lucky if I get to be behind the bowler's arm even once.. watching from the bounday, square of the wicket.. even if I take a scope... I'll not really be able to tell very much of what's going on: not a fault with my eyesight or grasp of bowling... just a sad fact that all anyone gets from watching cricket from anywhere other than behind the bowler's arm is (assuming the company is good) a nice place for a picnic.

You don't need to convince me that Davies is unlikely to play for England: Bicknell was overlooked in an era in which it was famously observed that Pollock would have been overlooked as "too slow" (something Fletcher was reported to have said of Hoggard in the days in which he preferred Anderson).... and one look at the Ashes pitches at Edgbaston and Old Trafford sugests that, following the example of Australia and Pakistan, there's not even going to be sporting "home" pitches in future.

My retort is "so what": no amout of first hand observation can hide the fact that Davies is the best medium pace bowler this country has produced in a very long time... and so long as he's turning in the results at the highest level (and notching up far greater hauls than the likes of Plunkett and Tremlett) he deserves recognition - it's not our fault if the selectors don't choose to take advantage of that genius (though I have to say that their current head-in-the sand attiude is a bit like Sri Lanka preparing non-turning tracks and then not selecting Murali because the pitches wouldn't suit).

Would watching more county cricket have changed my fundamental belief that the 'A' side needed Sidebottom's experience? I can't see how it would: I wanted one bowler with a lot of seasons under his belt... and as Sidebottom had bowled his socks off all season (and impressed observers) the case for selecting him was solid.

That left two spots... and one clearly came down to Tremlett vs. Plunkett. England came down on the side of Tremlett and we followed suit: was that wrong? I doubt it.

For Plunkett to make our team alongside the above he'd have had to get the nod ahead of Panesar... and my guess is that if I had picked 6 games at random from last season I'd probably have missed one or other (and perhaps both) of those players. Would it have made much difference if I had? I don't think so as Panesar was putting in consistently good performances and Plunkett was struggling to match his impact.

Football fans phone rant-lines on the basis that "they were there" and then talk gibberish that bears absolutely no relation to the far more insightful critique provided by the likes of Hansen. Being there rarely qualifies anyone for comment. I have far, far more time for a comment based on attending to such critics than on mere "observers"...

Like you, I've a lot of time for the views of people like Andy and The Phantom Ram... but it's because they do a lot more than just turn up to cricket matches.

ps. If you look back through the thread... I generally backed the likes of Andy and The Phantom Ram against those who argued against them.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Flanflinger... you're suggesting that my view of who's worth picking is going to be changed if I attend 5-6 county games... during which I'll be lucky if I get to be behind the bowler's arm even once.. watching from the bounday, square of the wicket..

In short yes,

Why do selectors (proper selectors) go and watch a player?

As for Football fans, I think they are a very different breed who cannot seem to understand that there team may have been at fault, or that the refree could possibly be applying the rules correctly.

How can you truly know if a players has something if you haven't even bothered to see for yourself. As for watching behind the bowlers arm, do what I do become a memeber, support a Cricket Club and get a good view form a members end!!

Do you have respect for my views too, I probably watch 10-15 days of cricket a season> Or do you only respect the views of those you happen to agree with?

Originally Posted by Rachael

I wanted one bowler with a lot of seasons under his belt... and as Sidebottom had bowled his socks off all season (and impressed observers)

Hmm- odd that impressed observers - as opposed to just impressing with stats!! Never said I had a problem with Sidebottom...

[Notts Exile]

It does become difficult to watch enough county cricket to get a varied and accurate view of who is good enough and who isn't. If one sees one county too often then their players will be top of your list purely because you see more of them. County bias will come into it, as much as we'd like to believe it doesn't! We do need to get a wider view of the county game than just the reports in the Daily Telegraph and the averages. How can anyone really say if Ryan Sidebottom was bowling any better than Chris Tremlett last summer? The stats would suggest he was, many Notts supporters and indeed their captain would suggest he was. At the same time Shane Warne and the Hampshire members would claim that Tremlett was bowling better. Unless you saw both of them week in week out it becomes difficult. That's why the selectors travel up and down the country watching players and also spending a lot of time talking to people who know the game, talking to the people wo do see them regularly.

There is no substitute for watching cricket regularly however it can give us a distorted view of who's in form and who's not.

[flanflinger]

True NE,

But I would trust someone who actually gets off the backside and watches days of County Cricket more than I would someone who tusrns on their computer and goes to CricInfo and looks at some stats.

Wouldn't you?

I sit in the Surrey members end, and I know all to well the players faults as much as their strengths!! I also get to hear other members and opposition supporters talk about the players, so it is not just a matter of taking in your own view.

The key for me was watching Durham, Plunkett stood out, Davies was forgettable....