WAT Selector Criteria

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

You appear fixated on this notion that people should make up their own minds about everything... and always based on observation or first hand experience: a very fashionable view and one I abhor for the simple reason that it leaves out any real concern with the hard work involved in grasping what it is you're looking at, of making observations that are even remotely significant and of relating observations made to a broader picture.

So forming your own opion is something disastrously wrong!! Bizare.

I base ny opions on having played and watched cricket for twenty years. Anything wrong with that?

If you think forming your own opion is something terrible, then you must hate living in a democracy... Would you prefer a meritocracy?

When I visit an art gallery is my opion (response) less valid than someone who has studied art for 4 years? If so I think you have missed the point...

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Now which is going to be more use? Me having a lot of nice picnics at the Riverside... or me actually taking the time to read / listen to reports from assorted people with the sort of insight that top journalists convey as a matter of course? To my mind there's no contest: just as I'd learn more about football from following Alan Hansen's analysis in the studio than from watching Norwich week in, week out.. I'd learn more from commentary, analysis and match reports.

I am not saying that you should not take into account the views of others or stastics, but what I am saying is that you cannot rule out your own opions, formed by spending time watching a player yourself.

You need all three.

One question Rachael, when was the last time you went to a F/C game?

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

When I visit an art gallery is my opion (response) less valid than someone who has studied art for 4 years? If so I think you have missed the point...

With respect ff a poor analogy.

A response to a peice of art be it a sculpture or a painting is not the same as evaluating players.

Once art has been created it is static, with cricket players form can change, even their outlook, so if you have seen a player once or twice you can not make a proper evaluation without following up with match and press reports.

So having seen a player is just one small part of a selection process, Rachael's contribution of researching a player is just as important in selecting a team.

The use of scouts is the same as what Rachael does, a scout reports back to a coach or selector.

The coach will then sign a player on the word of a scout, having maybe never seen him himself, this happens most of the time in soccer.
Reputation is taken greatly into account.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Reputation is taken greatly into account.

Yes, but it is the manager who then has to find a place for that player after having seen him on the training pitch.

The art analogy was in relation to Rachael's view that personal opion is abhorant, it does not work with regards to players.

OK all I am saying is - if you want to be a WAT selector, amongst other things such a reading articles and spending time analaysing data, you should also get to the County Grounds and start forming a first hand opinion. If you do not have the time (or the inclanation) then maybe watch it on TV...

I beleive everything can be improved, the team that was selected has some anomolies, maybe if those who put themselves up as selectors want these to be ironed out, then next year they should take some time to watch some live cricket, my goodness if you love the game as much as we do it, you might actually enjoy it!!

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

When I visit an art gallery is my opion (response) less valid than someone who has studied art for 4 years? If so I think you have missed the point...

Let's get one thing straight: developing a personal taste for one thing rather than another... that one responds more positively to one thing than another.. is a totally different thing from forming a significant enough opinion on something to give yourself a view worth sharing.

I find something deeply pernicious about the notion that any old Tom, Dick or Harry can contribute to a discussion on (say) music or art: I might find I can say something on either to my young niece... because my degree of ignorance is rather less than hers... but I should also get one thing straight from the start - if I attempt to answer a question she poses I will be endevouring to summarise what I believe would be considered an authoritative view on the part of those who know rather more than I do and very much NOT expressing my own opinion.

Being prepared to expand on what you TAKE to be authoritative when challenged is critical to social interaction... but that's very different from having an opinion.

As WAT selectors we need to establish what would count as an authoritative view of who the principle contenders might be and of what criteria we should be using to choose between players and what factors we ought to be considering in balancing the side. The ultimate aim is to exemplify an authoritative take on who should play: to hold up a side that others could see as one they migh thave produced themselves had they used the same considerations and criteria.

The opinon that "I saw this guy Rikki Clarke and think he is going to be better than Botham and Flintoff" and the counter of "nah, Punkett's going to be the next great all-rounder" doesn't really have much place in a discussion of this sort: the aim isn't to pick long-odds "winners" as you would at a betting shop... it's more about addressing the issues that arise once you start looking at the multi-dimensional players who are most clearly deserving of consideration at 6-7-8 (should that Collingwood, Foster and Tremlett.. or perhaps Prior, Mascarenhas and Swann).

My aim is generally to do what I can to ensure that the side that emerges (whatever it is) can be explained and justified as a worthy effort to anticipate what others, far more knowledgeable than myself, might opine. That strikes me as a pretty noble aim and (more significantly) as far, far more constructive than any "who'd be in your personal dream XI 'A' team" approach that sought lots of meaningless personal takes.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

The opinon that "I saw this guy Rikki Clarke and think he is going to be better than Botham and Flintoff" and the counter of "nah, Punkett's going to be the next great all-rounder" doesn't really have much place in a discussion of this sort: the aim isn't to pick long-odds "winners" as you would at a betting shop...

So what your saying is - if you are go and watch the game you become an idiot incapable of making a constructive argument that will hold up on it's own?

I agree with you that we do not want to lower the debate, all I am saying is what is wrong with having people selecting the team who have actaully made the effort to see the players involoved?

Does that seem so appauling, or does it offend you beause it will mean that next year, as you do not attend any games, you would be excluded from the selection process?

[greg]

I find it strange any woman would trust Geoff Boycott with his track record

[Collyisamackem]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

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.

I object to that comment. I'm a football fan, and IMO a fair-minded one at that. I never have a problem with seeing when my team has played badly or applauding a good refereeing performance. The majority of my friends who like football are the same.

As for the comments about not watching cricket. I watch what I can. For the last 3 and a half years I've been at university, working very hard at universities where standards are high. I watched a reasonable amount on TV and regularly saw highlights. I did get a chance to watch most of what was on Sky over the summer from mid-June onwards (including F/C, Totesport and Twenty20 games involving most sides), but I doubt I will get the chance to get to first class games on a regular basis. I am too busy on weekdays.

[flanflinger]

Sorry Colly,

Bit of a generaliastion about Football fans... It has to be said though that there are some fans (and you see them every week) who cannot seem to grasp that their team may have been at fault.

But you are quite right to point out that not all are like that.

[Collyisamackem]

You are right, but thankfully I feel it's the minority who are the only ones bothered enough to rig up the phone-ins etc. and whinge. Us sensible types have better things to do!