WAT Selector Criteria

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

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?

Very much so.

As you rightly pointed out, Mark Davies is probably the best case. Apart from the Durham supporters no-one else who's seen him would select him for England. Those who look purely at stats might believe he could do it, the rest of us know far too well that on better pitches at Test level he would suffer.

[Andy Mellon]

The other problem is where you watch the cricket. In recent years, most of my viewings of cricket matches have been at the seamer-friendly Rose Bowl. Having seen Dimitri Mascarenhas there, I'm amazed that he's not even been mentioned in dispatches for the ODI team (especially in 2004 when he was superb!). At the Rose Bowl, he's able to swing the ball both ways and get some very good batsman out. Also, he's a decent bat - possibly as good as Geraint Jones. But then, how would he look if you saw him at Taunton or Chelmsford - both flat batting pitches in mid-summer. Having NOT seen Mascarenhas on either of those pitches, can I truly say that I've seen how he plays when the conditions are against him? Similarly with Mark Davies; I'm betting that if you saw him at the Riverside or Rose Bowl, or in good conditions for seam bowlers then you too would have wanted him in the A Team. However, watch him at the Oval or on a hot, dry day with no movement in the air and I'm sure that he looks for ordinary. I suppose the ideal player is one who can exploit the conditions of a good day or pitch, but has that certain something that allows him to get wickets on a dead pitch - Flintoff and Harmison being examples, but Hoggard being more of an exploiter of good conditions and Simon Jones appearing to be more dangerous on pitches that shouldn't necessarily suit his bowling.

This is the problem as I see it. I certainly think that FF has a decent idea about getting to watch the players you're keen on. At the Rose Bowl, even non-members can walk around the whole ground and getting a view of at least a few balls from behind the bowler's arm is fairly easy. I don't think that those who haven't seen players should be alienated, but I'm sure a combination of the two could be devised whereby players who are nominated could be 'described' by those who've seen them. Unfortunately, with Davies - when I've seen him, he's looked fairly unplayable, so myself and FF would have had dissenting views. Also, both Tremlett and Plunkett from when I've seen them have not looked very special. In fact, Hampshire's Billy Taylor looked considerably more effective than Tremlett in all the Hampshire games that I've seen them play in together, yet Taylor would never get mentioned as in contention for the A Team (maybe he suffers from the stigma attached to having a similar name to left-arm Seamer Paul Taylor?).

Hence, although the views of those who've seen the nominees in action are very important, I still doubt that a concensus could be easily reached even by doing as FF has suggested. Also, I'm not going to be in the UK next summer and will not get a chance to see any first class county cricket, and even less of the beloved Essex than I get to see now Does that mean I shouldn't contribute to the discussions even though the statistics and match reviews for next summer would be all that I've seen to base my opinions on?

On the positive side, I'll be able to watch the Wellington team in action fairly soon, so I'll be able to give you the inside track on the opposition in the NZ A Team!!!!

[flanflinger]

AM,

I agree, but I too am unlikely to watch much F/C Cricket this coming year, but if we are too select a Credible A team, pethaps to become a WAT A team selector you should have to do more than just use the Stats facility on CricInfo,

I am not saying rule out stats to prove one case over another, what I am saying is thet to get the title "WAT A Team England Selector" you should actully get out there spot some potential and come up with a credible and rounded argument about a player.

PS when I saw Tremlett at the Oval I was suprised why he was being talked of as an England player, he got clattered all-round the Oval!!

[Rachael]

For what it's worth my selections for (and arguments about) the WAT 'A' Team last year took full account of what knowledge I had of different players: I did go to the trouble of visiting a lot of county sites, reviewing actual wickets taken at particular grounds, reading match reports from Under 19 tours and attending closely to what more seasoned county watchers had to say (to the point where I even sent PMs to people like NE to get the benefit of first hand accounts).

None of the above trumps a commitment to fairness: I'm mightily sick of "fashionable" players having the bar set rather lower for them than it would be for someone less fashionable.. and when a player like Davies (or Collingwood) delivers the goods I have a grave objection to anyone sticking the boot in their face and waving the next bright young thing through the door without making them earn that privilige. TO that end... I tried to pin down as many WAT selectors as possible on their views of the players they had seen: some struck me as worth supporting (e.g. Andy on Foster, The Phantom Ram on Panesar) and others seemed less worthy (e.g. Mike on Prior, Ernest on anyone who passed his speed gun test).

With the above in mind my initial XI only included those I considered to have made an exceptionally worthy case for inclusion.... as follows:

Cook
?
?
Joyce
Shah
Collingwood
Foster
?
Tremlett
Sidebottom
Davies

I should also note that 10 of the 12 selectors chose Davies in their initial XI and five made him a "key player" (including seasoned county cricket watchers like The Phantom Ram, Collyisamackem and Glamorgan Wanderer).

ps. There's no rule that says Test wickets have to be grossly unsporting: the ECB could very easily run a three Test series using the Rose Bowl, the Riverside and Headingley and tell the other established venues that they need to get their act together in order to get future Tests.

[greg]

Originally Posted by Rachael

ps. There's no rule that says Test wickets have to be grossly unsporting: the ECB could very easily run a three Test series using the Rose Bowl, the Riverside and Headingley and tell the other established venues that they need to get their act together in order to get future Tests.

Why should we prepare test pitches that favour bowlers all the time like Headingley,Rose Bowl and Riverside?Surely the best thing about a summer is the fact that the pitches are different all over the country?

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by greg

Why should we prepare test pitches that favour bowlers all the time like Headingley,Rose Bowl and Riverside?

The only reason would be to maximise your advantage against touring sides; most other sides, especially the likes of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, West Indies etc would find life very difficult on pitches with a hint of grass and offering any help to English seamers. In theory, the English batsmen, who have grown up in "English conditions", should find life much easier than those from any other country except perhaps New Zealand - and of course, this has been proven by facts. As we saw at Lord's this year, when some upstart Australian called Glenn could get very little leverage against the solid technique of England's batsman, despite the green-top. We saw it again in the two practice matches in Pakistan, when Pakistan's third string pace bowlers were completely ineffectual against England's solid top-seven.

hmmm...maybe this idea sounds better in theory than in real life

[flanflinger]

Rachael,

Don't reemebr you PM'ing me? Am I not seasoned enough for you? Been a Surrey memebr for five years, watch 10-15 days (minimum) of County Cricket a year... which means I probably watch more than most...

I do not believe though that there is anything better than forming your own opion based upon watching players yourself.

All I am saying is lets raise the bar. If we want our A Team selections to have some clout, to be an A team selector you need to get out there and watch players for yourself.

Maybe each selector should submit a brief match report highlighting good performances, potential players or players to watch? Then we could have a library of reports to back up our end of year selections?

I have been impressed all season by Doshi, his figures were average but he bowled with a lot of heart and skill and didn't have any luck. As it was I feel that there are probably better candidiates for a spinner though.

[admin]

We know that for every player who made it at Test level there were probably half a dozen other players who had similar, if not better stats at County level. Some of them might also have been given a tryout and failed or they might have been overlooked. The one's who make it have a couple of qualities that the others lack: an ability to keep improving and adapting to Test level and mental toughness to bounce back after a poor performance. In my view, players who are consistently good have those characteristics. Only those close to the players can guage if they have the first two qualities. The WAT selectors, including those who see the players live cannot. But we can see from the stats whether a player has reached a high level of skill and performs at that level in consecutive seasons. That'll do me. I know the players I choose may not fit the profile that the England selectors look for but I know that they have champion qualities and would make a strong case for selection if allowed to show their stuff at A level.

[flanflinger]

Admin,

Stats cannot tell the whole story, as you rightly state some players have great stats but never make it. So lets raise the bar to be a WAT selector. This means Stats are used to back up arguments, not be the only criteria.

I would say that to be a WAT selector you have to do more than just look at Stats. Otherwise we may as well set up a Computer Programme to tell us who is the best XI players, with no knowledge at all other than raw data.

Raise the bar, get the WAT selectors to watch Cricket and come up with players who may not have achived but have potential. That for me is why Plunkett should have been selected over Davies, and why England have plumped for the later and not the former!!

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Don't reemebr you PM'ing me? [...] Maybe each selector should submit a brief match report highlighting good performances, potential players or players to watch? Then we could have a library of reports to back up our end of year selections?

I've actually taken a fair bit on board from your own observations of players. More last year than this, perhaps: you did a good job of defending Rikki Clarke when many were leaping to conclusions that seemed a little premature given his relative youth.

On the "reports" front... I'm all in favour of your suggestion. That is, to some extent, why we read match reports... and I'm going to confess a bias towards the tips of the likes of CMJ over most other tips... but let's also get a grip on what the 'A' selections are about: it's about showcasing those who are both deserving AND promising... and so not entirely suitable for someone merely deserving (though you could say we got one such player in Mascarenhas) nor someone merely promising (though you could argue we got one such player in Panesar).

Plunkett and Davies are perhaps at opposite ends in terms of the promising and the deserving but you (rather in the manner of Ian "revolving door" Botham) only seem interested in one end of that spectrum - I find that deeply depressing coming from someone who watches a fair bit of county cricket as county cricket observers have long complained that the deserving cases (like Saggers and Martin Bicknell) are treated very, very badly by selectors who are more prone to hand out caps like confetti to any passing fancy like Ed Smith or Jimmy Anderson.

One final thought though... if we were going down the route of setting criteria for selectors... where would it end? Do you also dismiss those who watch Giles grab a sackful and then rant about the need for spinners who turn the ball square? Do you dismiss those who watch Hoggard dominate and then rant about the need for extreme pace? Where does such a route end?

Those who watch a fair bit of county cricket are just as prone to talking nonsense as anyone else!