WAT Selector Criteria

[flanflinger]

With every performance by Liam Plunkett it makes our "A" team look more and more ridiculous!!

We have criteria for the players we select, but to be a WAT Selector you just have to send an email at the right time (for the second year in a row I missed it) so we have people selecting the team based on stats.

I feel to be a selctor you should have to qualify by watching atleast 5 days of first class cricket at the ground. or atleast 10 days on TV. (including Twenty-20 and List A One dayers)

Sometimes you have to see a player before you realise they have something. Stats only tell 50% of the story. So we have ended up selecting Mark Davies and not Liam Plunkett.

The England selectors spend time actually watching the palyers, yet we pick on stats, the result, the team we have selected looks wrong.

http://www.world-a-team.com/showpost...&postcount=462

[Statto]

Weight of number has its influence though, Those of us who wanted him in (me, you, Ern?) were outvoted and at the end of the day that can happen. I would easily meet your "criteria" but its not a guarantee that I'd see the best players all of the time - I only go to Old Trafford - so there would still be people I only see once a year on TV so I'm really none the wiser anyway.

[flanflinger]

Statto,

I agree but the fact is this team was picked by people who never watch County Cricket at all. They look at paper figures rather than potential. The result is that some players end up in the team based purely on speculation and statistics rather than ability!!

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Without wanting to be pedantic (which I am), statastics to a certain extent show how good a player is and 5 days of county cricket isnt going to get a good look at a lot of player, trawling through a lot of match reports will give just as good a idea. Besides if a player hasnt got good stats despite you, me or anyone watching him, you're picking him on speculation anyway. If that makes sense.

[flanflinger]

RBLC,

True, but stats are not everything!!

For me the best way to judge players is a healthy mixture of both. The problem is too often our A Team is picked by people who have never watched these players.

I saw Durham this year, Plunkett impressed me, Davies didn't but if you look at the two players on paper Davies is better. But it only tells half the story.

Another suggestion would be that rather than getting 30 names who all look good on paper, we should have each member electing two counties they will watch this season and at the end of the season they will put forward the case for five players from those two teams, based on stats and personal judgement.

[Rachael]

Not convinced: Plunkett is only in Pakistan because Tremlett was injured.. and he's still looking like a novice with the ball. Let's face it.. in this game he's been completely carted.. going for 63 and wicketless off just 7 overs when Collingwood went for 35 with 1 wicket.

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
Flintoff                     8      1     30      1 (3nb, 1w)
Harmison                    10      0     52      1 (1w)
Plunkett                     7      0     63      0 (1w)
Blackwell                    7      0     28      0
Collingwood                  7      0     35      1 (1w)

The guy appears to have a good temperament and be a good prospect... but two things should trump that: firstly, players like Sidebottom and Davies deserve credit for outbowling him all summer (hard work deserves to be rewarded)... and secondly, it's one thing bowling as a novice alongside relative veterans like Flintoff and Harmison... but quite another playing with other very raw bowlers in an 'A' side.

Even on the back of Plunkett's tour I'd still make Sidebottom my first pick for a genuine 'A' side because he's been there and done it far more often and has the experience to lead an attack. You couldn't really leave out Davies given that he was the outstanding bowler of the season and that left a spin-up between Plunkett and Tremlett... and Tremlett deserved the nod on that one.

[Collyisamackem]

Yes Rachael, but maybe he was a little tired after out-batting our batsmen. He also did pretty darn well in the last game when Freddie and Harmy got carted. Give the guy a break.

For the record, I selected Plunkett in my original A-Team, but we wisely decided to go back to good old Ryan Sidebottom. I'm sure he'd have scored a fifty today.

[Rachael]

Plunkett, Tremlett, Davies and Panesar would have had exactly how many 1st class games between them?

An 'A' team needs to be a capable side as well as giving opportunities to good prospects: even an Under-21 or Under-23 side has to be picked in part on that basis... and if we're going to try and put out the strongest under-30 team possible then the like sof Sidebottom are critical.

[admin]

I agree with Rachael. Plunkett played because Simon jones and Chris Tremlett were unavailable. We knew he was a good talent because he just missed out on selection this year. All the guys ahead of him fully deserve a chance to play A team cricket and develop their potential further for future Test selection. I cannot fathom why England don't have a proper A team when Australia does. England insist on sending young players out to the sub-continent to get hammered. There are plenty of very good players just below the age of thirty who are completely overlooked for overseas tours. Meanwhile Brad Hodge and Mike Hussey get loads of A tours and make the Australian side. I think Hussey is 27 and Hodge is 30. This is why the WAT age criteria is under 30. This is why many WAT England A players will be overlooked by the England selectors. Fletcher likes to pick them young and mold them to his style of player.

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.

[Andy Mellon]

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.

Well, going by the flanflinger criterion of having watched the selected players in county cricket, I was shocked by Prior's technique! When I say shocked, I mean appalled! Now, I'll fully admit he might, just might, have a role in a ODI team, but as a test player, he is totally incapable of building an innings. If we brought in Prior it would make our middle order the most unpredictable hit or miss bunch in the world today. Either hundreds in as many balls, or the middle order rolled over in an over. Also, in terms of the statistics - without looking at them - I fully expect that Prior had a lower batting average in county cricket this year than Nic Pothas, James Foster or even Chris Read!

Therefore, from my point of view - statistically and having seen him - I would say a big NO to Prior for a test squad.