WAT Test match rule

[admin]

The Test match rule as it stands for qualifying players in the WAT A teams is that they should not have played more than 5 Test matches. That rule makes selection easier because the number of Test matches played can be easily found on the player pages of cricinfo's country sites.

However, Rachael identified a situation where the rule could unfairly eliminate a good prospect. She refers to it in this post.

I suggested we add a proviso to that rule where only the Test matches played from the age of 25 be counted. That's because many young players get thrown into Test cricket before they are ready and play more than 5 matches and then get dumped for the next young gun in the queue. Quite often they are better prepared in their late 20s but never get a second opportunity.

I think this is a valid point Rachael makes but the proviso to the main rule makes the whole rule more complicated and involves checking the amount of Test matches played from 25 years of age.

This topic is open for further debate to come up with a simple rule that can be easily implemented.

[Ernest]

We can keep adding an extra game on here and there because this will come up again, and with respect to Rachael other players have done better than Foster without any rule changes.

The fact is that in real cricket(that we want to be as close to as possible) young players do get thrown in some would say before they are ready.

If we change the rules to take this into acount, then our A Team is slipping further from what is realistic.

[admin]

Originally Posted by Ernest

If we change the rules to take this into acount, then our A Team is slipping further from what is realistic.

There's no doubt that Foster seems to have slipped down the pecking order and Chris Read's inclusion in the Academy squad seems to confirm this. However, Foster's case is exceptional. He must have been a precocious talent to be given seven Test matches at such an early age. The case for including him in the WAT England A team is based on his potential to develop into a Test player if given the opportunity again. Rachael believes that he could make the grade but other WAT selectors remain unconvinced. I think he is a genuine A player but I don't believe, like Rachael, that he would make it at Test level. He has had quite a few years at County level to prove himself but his performances have been matched and superceded by younger players so any arguments for re-trying him are losing their validity.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by admin

Foster's case is exceptional. He must have been a precocious talent to be given seven Test matches at such an early age.

Foster is not the only player to show early potential a good case in point is Chris Schofield who was seen to be a decent Leggie for England at last at a young age, and he could also bat, but he never made it at Test level.

But he would be eligable maybe under a rule change, this bothered me here 72043 , and of course it would include other players who did not make it earlier.
I don't myself think we should tinker with the rules, maybe in a very exeptional case were a player has had good stats for the last 3 years, the selectors could vote on his possible inclusion.

[admin]

I'm not going to defend Schofield now but he is the sort of player who fits Rachael's view. He played two Test matches at 21 (now 27). He didn't bowl in the 1st Test and only bowled 18 overs with a damp ball on a rain-sodden ground in the 1st innings. He was slightly more expensive than Gough on that day. What sort of tryout by the selectors is that? Pathetic. If Schofield bowled as well as Keedy or Panesar at County level then there is no reason not to pick him for the WAT A team.

[Rachael]

The England WAT actually had very few casualties on this front: few youngsters had been thrown in out of their depth... and even fewer had been dropped and then made a stong case for a recall. Chris Read's career to date has been in two phases... and I'm sure that with a bit of thought we could come up with others... but the fact that Foster made the WAT side suggests that the original rule was too restrictive.

In the case of Pakistan the situation is far more serious: so many players have been tried and then dropped that you might well be able to put a complete 'A' side together of capped players who are under 30 and outside the first XI. It's partly a matter of the Test setup lacking continuity... and perhaps partly cultural (quest for a young miracle-worker rather than on working harder with solid but unspectacular journeymen).. but it's largely a matter of the domestic and academy front being less than ideal: players are thrown into the Test arena because there's not much chance of them proving themselves (or of getting the experience they need) in domestic cricket.

The upshot is obvious: key players like Imran Farhat and Umar Gul end up with 5 or more Tests to their name despite being very young players with huge promise who have no immediate prospect of a run in a full strength senior side. Umar and Imran are VERY young... but I would suggest that any Pakistan 'A' side that ommitted either would look strange.

Were you impressed by Rana Naved-ul-Hasan in the recent Test series? Had Shabir Ahmed not been reported for his action he would not have played... but would have been an obvious 'A' team candidate... yet even he had played 5 Tests prior to that call-up.

Can you seriously imagine a credible Pakistan WAT 'A' Team without players like those I've listed? I can't.

[Ernest]

Yes Schofield played two matches and I watched him play, it was against Zimbabwe I think.

But his two Tests should count in our rules, in other words should he make a comeback he would only be able to play three more matches, an extreem case but it takes into account his none early England form.

Also to compare him with Foster is interesting-in first class cricket he has a strike rate of I think 62, which for his age made him a real England prospect.
Also his batting was about 30 with Lanc's, and in the mid 20s I think with England.

Sounds good but the fact is that England ruined him as a player, but would still be eligable under a static rule change.

I did see Schofield play County cricket, and he was an exciting prospect, and on the basis of that and his stats, he would be just as eligable as Foster should he make a comeback, that don't seem right to me.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Can you seriously imagine a credible Pakistan WAT 'A' Team without players like those I've listed? I can't.

You say lots of players have been tried and dropped for Pakistan, well that in the past has happened to England, Troughton comes to mind, and Igglesden was called back much to late in his career, Schofield another, and Fairbrother was never given a real chance at Test cricket.

We could end up picking players with fragmented playing careers if much more than 5 games is allowed.

[admin]

Rachael, although Imran Farhat is only 23 he has played 15 Test matches but according to your Test match rule, that Test matches played before the age of 25 don't count, he is eligible for WAT selection. I think that is wrong - that is not what the WAT concept is all about which is to promote up-and-coming fringe players. Imran Fahrat is clearly not a fringe player even though he hasn't established a regular place in the Pakistan team.

I've got no problems with Umar Gul as he has only played 5 Test matches but it's conceivable he could also exceed that number before he reaches the age of 25 in which case he's still eligible for WAT selection according to your criteria.

Naved-ul-Hasan has played all his Test matches since the age of 26 so he doesn't qualify for WAT selection as he has played 7 matches.

I have a problem with players playing a lot of Test matches at an early age and still being selected for the WAT team but if that's what the other WAT selectors want then so be it.

Mark Ramprakash played 15 matches before turning 25 and was in and out of the side during that period. According to Rachael's plan those 15 matches wouldn't count as far as WAT selection was concerned. But history shows that he never achieved a decent average at Test level. He probably would have succeeded at A level but those first 15 matches were enough of an indicator in my opinion to show that Ramps wasn't going to cut it at Test level.

[Ernest]

Jimmy Anderson has played about 12 matches with a strike rate of 58, surely under Rachaels wishes he would be eligable for our A Team.
I don't know why he was never persevered with.
However it's a long way from 5 matches, we really do have to draw the line at either age, or number of matches played.
With respect again to Rachael, every year we could dillute our terms of ref because of a complaint from any selector.

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/co...ayer/8608.html

[admin]

The WAT team was never meant to be an England Seconds. Jimmy Anderson is in and out of the team like Ramrakash was. He isn't fully established in the team and he is probably a logical candidate for an England Seconds but the WAT concept is more to do with identifying deserving up-and-coming players than fielding a true England Seconds.